Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 496 N.E.2d 778 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2011

12 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schmerber v. State of California · Berkemer v. McCarty · Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner · State v. Wyatt

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

  1. “Analysis of [Ind.Code § -9-11-2-4, now Ind.Code § 9-30-541] should focus on the driver’s acts and not on speculation about whether he could have stopped if he had been sober. If the driver’s conduct caused the injury, he commits the crime; if someone else’s conduct caused the injury, he is not guilty.... This is not to say that a drunk driver who hits a child who has run out from between two parked cars is not entitled to ask a jury to find him not guilty because there is reasonable doubt whether he caused the collision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “This is not to say that a drunk driver who hits a child who has run out from between two parked cars is not entitled to ask a jury to find him not guilty because there is reasonable doubt whether he caused the collision. In fact, Micin-ski has made a similar argument: he asserts that the proof showed the fog and the victims may have caused the collision. The jury heard this argument and the evidence and found Micinski guilty. Our review of the evidence indicates they were entitled to do so.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “defendant cannot claim that the trial court should have suspended the entire sentence since that issue was discretionary with the trial court.”
    1 later decision 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.