Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 580 So. 2d 1221 - Smith v. State

580 So. 2d 1221 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2014

15 state decisions

70199120002010decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Hewitt v. Helms · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Meachum v. Fano · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill

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

  1. “no constitutionally recognized liberty interest”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in the custody of the Miss. Dept. of Corrections under the terms and conditions of Miss. Code Ann., Sec. 47-7-47 (shock probation)... .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]n practice, this somewhat awkward language has been considered authorization for the RID program to which some offenders are assigned by [the] MDOC, sometimes at the express direction or recommendation of the sentencing judge. There is no expression of MDOC `advice and consent' at the time of [initial] sentencing. Success in RID determines whether [the] MDOC will recommend earned probation. In the inst[ant] case the sentencing order[s] expressly provided that Smith successfully complete RID. .... Section 47-7-47 contains no objective standards or criteria for determining whether the Department of Corrections should either grant or withhold a recommendation of probation to the court. Nor does it contain objective standards or criteria for determining whether the court should accept the advice and recommendations made by the MDOC. Rather, the statute vests absolute discretion in both the MDOC and the 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.