400 So. 2d 956 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

cited by 51 later decisions

states following

February 2016

most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably 168 Wis. 2d 509 - State v. Knight (1992), 486 So. 2d 578 - Kelley v. State (1986)

50 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Agurs · Knight v. State · LeDuc v. Florida

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[T]he alleged facts must be of such a vital nature that had they been known to the trial court, they conclusively would have prevented the entry of the judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 493 So. 2d 56 - Gilliam v. State · 475 So. 2d 210 - Rolle v. State
“In his motion for post-conviction relief, Smith contended that the State's failure to disclose certain allegedly favorable evidence to him before trial amounted to a Brady violation in contravention of his right to due process of law. He further alleged that he did not become aware of this purportedly undisclosed evidence until after judgment and sentence had been entered and that this evidence would have been material to his trial. Since this challenge is based on the ground that the judgment was entered in violation of the due process clause of the constitution, since Smith alleges he did not have knowledge of the basis for this challenge prior to final judgment, and since it is within the peculiar province of the trial court to determine whether there was a Brady violation requiring a new trial, Smith's raising of this point in a motion to vacate judgment was appropriate. 400 So.2d at 962 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Demps v. State · 433 So. 2d 1263 - Ashley v. State
“The appropriate first step for a defendant seeking a new trial on the basis of new evidence ... is a petition to the appellate court for leave to file a petition for error coram nobis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 413 So. 2d 756 - Booker v. State · 546 So. 2d 1037 - Richardson v. State

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.