Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 602 So. 2d 470 - Smith v. State

602 So. 2d 470 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2014

6 state decisions

30199220002010decided

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 American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Hagemann v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n · Marathon Oil Co. v. United States · 557 So. 2d 1292 - Callahan v. State · Lawson 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Specific grounds of objection waive all other grounds not specified at trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Once the issue of self-defense is raised, the State must prove that the accused did not act in self-defense in the sense that the State must prove a prima facie case of unjustified homicide.’ Ex parte Johnson, 433 So.2d 479, 481 (Ala.1983). See also Howard v. State, 420 So.2d 828 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). Thus, the State continues to have the burden of proving all of the elements of homicide and ‘must counter any evidence presented by the defendant which would raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of one of those elements.’ Johnson at 481. The weight and credibility of the evidence is for the jury’s determination. Id.””
    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.