State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2016
6 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 Chapman v. State of California · Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · State v. Hurtt · State v. Escoe
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In evaluating ... plain error, special attention should be given to the nature of the error which has occurred. Some errors may be disregarded even though they constitute constitutional deprivations, provided that they “are so unimportant and insignificant that they may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). On the other hand, “there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wilson · State v. Callahan
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.