Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Wright v. State (1997), Slaton v. State (1987)
1 federal appellate · 40 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 Emerson v. State · Dembowski v. State · Tungate v. State · Proctor v. State · Cansler v. State
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) that it is material and relevant; (8) that it is not cumulative; (4) that it is not merely impeaching; (5) that it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) that due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) that the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) that it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) that it will probably produce a different result. [Citation omitted.]"”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Powers v. State · Moredock v. State“Generally, the crime of assisting a eriminal was "intended to cover the situation where a person did not actively participate in the crime itself but after the commission of the crime aided the criminal." (Emphasis added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Horn v. State“Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to set forth specific findings of fact or conclusions of law when denying the motion to correct errors. In support of this proposition he cites Moore v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 335 . In Moore this Court held that a trial judge in ruling on a motion to correct errors has the duty to examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the verdict of the jury. When the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and a new trial is required, the trial court is compelled by TR. 59(I)(7) (now 59(J)(7)) to make special findings of fact setting forth the supporting and opposing evidence to each issue upon which a new trial is granted. The trial court is not so required when overruling a motion to correct errors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roarks 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.