Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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

1. ““The purpose of our statutes relating to the handling of youthful offenders is, as in other states having juvenile court systems, the education, treatment and rehabilitation of the child, rather than retributive punishment. The emphasis on training and rehabilitation, rather than punishment, is underscored by the declaration that juvenile proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. Instead of a complaint or indictment we have a ‘petition.’ The hearing never results in a conviction, but may lead to an ‘adjudication of delinquency.’ Where confinement of the delinquent child is indicated as the proper treatment, the child is not sentenced to prison but, instead, is ‘committed’ to a ‘training school.’ The adjudication of delinquency does not carry with it any of the civil dis abilities ordinarily resulting from conviction of crime, nor is the child considered to be a criminal because of such adjudication.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brandy M. · In Re Interest of AMH

2. “When a child has been committed to the [Texas] Youth Council as a delinquent child, the Council may: (a) Permit him his liberty under supervision and upon such conditions it believes conducive to acceptable behavior; or (b) Order his confinement under such conditions as it believes best designed for his welfare and the interest of the public; or (c) Order reconfinement or renewed release as often as conditions indicate to be desirable; or (d) Revoke or modify any order of the Council affecting a child, except an order of final discharge, as often as conditions indicate to be desirable; or (e) Discharge him from control when it is satisfied that such discharge will best serve his welfare and the protection of the public.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of A---N---M · In re A_ N_ M

3. “It might persuasively be argued that a statute which permits longer confinement of children does impinge on fundamental personal liberties, although, in the area of criminal law, courts have traditionally allowed legislatures considerable leeway in classifying offenses and offenders for sentencing purposes. Apparently, it has not been thought that the possibility of a longer period of confinement, standing alone, calls for a strict standard of review. If the purpose of permitting longer periods of detention for children was to punish youthful offenders more severely than adult criminals, the application of a strict standard of review would seem justified. But where the legislative purpose is to benefit the affected class, a less strict standard would seem proper. We are familiar with the literature reflecting disillusionment concerning the practical administration of the rehabilitative ideal, and the burgeoning literature of criticism of the juvenile system in this country. But, as the Texas Supreme Court pointed out only a few days ago, “while we must accept as true much of the dismal picture painted in G-ault as to the abuses of the juvenile system, we cannot condemn out of hand the Texas Youth Council, the juvenile judges, and other trained people working in this field. The policy of the juvenile laws has been fixed by the Texas legislature and we conceive it to be our duty to uphold the spirit of that law * * The purpose of the juvenile laws is benign, rather than invidio”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 116 N.J. Super. 580 - Sate ex rel. K. V. N.