Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 SO2D 31 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

318
cited by 318 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

316 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 318 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 796 So. 2d 649 - State v. Neal (2001), 936 So. 2d 108 - State v. Leger (2006)

316 state decisions

13801983199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Swain v. State of Alabama

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 318 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that: * * * * * * (3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict; ..."”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]s a general matter, when the key issue is the defendant's identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the state is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.