500 So. 2d 125 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably State v. Schopp (1995), Hunter v. State (1995)
76 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Kotteakos v. United States
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he question of "prejudice" in a discovery context is not dependent upon the potential impact of the undisclosed evidence on the fact finder but rather upon its impact on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he purpose of a Richardson inquiry is to ferret out procedural, rather than substantive, prejudice.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schopp · D.R. v. State“[o]ne cannot determine whether the state's transgression of the discovery rules has prejudiced the defendant (or has been harmless) without giving the defendant the opportunity to speak to the question.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Barrett v. State · State v. Schopp
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.