Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
132 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Simmons (1995), Commonwealth v. Wright (2008)
132 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 Terry v. Ohio · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Ashe v. Swenson · Irvin v. Dowd
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) An identification of the issues in the two actions for the purpose of determining whether the issues are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both actions to justify in invoking the doctrine; (2) an examination of the record of the prior case to decide whether the issue was ‘litigated’ in the first case;- and (3) an examination of the record of the prior proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) has been discovered after the trial and could not have been obtained at or prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely for impeaching credibility of a witness; and (4) is of such nature and character that a different verdict will likely result if a new trial is granted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is true, of coui'se, that an accused has the right to challenge a prospective juror for lack of impartiality. We do not expect jurors to be free from all prejudices, however; rather, the law requires them to be able to put aside them prejudices and determine guilt or innocence on the facts presented.... The purpose of the voir dire examination is not to provide a better basis upon which a defendant can exercise his peremptory challenges, but to determine whether any venireman has formed a fixed opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence.... The burden of proving that a venireman should be excused for cause is on the challenger who must demonstrate that he or she possesses a fixed, unalterable opinion that would prevent him or her from rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence and the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.