Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 So. 2d 182 - Smoot v. State

520 So. 2d 182 - Smoot v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 797 So. 2d 1134 - Simmons v. State (2000), MacOn County Com'n v. Sanders (1990)

27 state decisions

1601987199020002010decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Day v. State · 378 So. 2d 1173 - Turner v. State · Jones v. State

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

  1. “`[A]ny objection to an expert witness on the ground that he or she lacks knowledge goes to the weight rather than to the admissibility of his or her testimony.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Specific grounds of objection [or a motion for a verdict of acquittal] waive all grounds not specified.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Ordinarily, remoteness of time affects the weight and probative value of evidence rather than its admissibility. It rests largely in the enlightened discretion of the court whether or not such proof will be allowed. Remoteness has regard also to factors and considerations other that mere lapse of time. It results, therefore, that it is practically impossible and not at all accurate to attempt to state a fixed rule or standard with particular reference to the time element. Of course it can be said with certainty that the tendered evidence must not be so remote in point of time as to be without causal connection or logical relation to the main event.””
    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.