Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 612 S.W.2d 493 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2016

10 state decisions

601980199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Rojas v. Rojas · Inman v. State · Cook v. State · Beck 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The test for the sufficiency of an indictment is whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged; sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet; and in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the making, with intent to defraud of a false representation of a past or existing fact; (2) the representation was calculated to deceive the person to whom it was made and did in fact deceive that person; (3) the false pretense was capable of defrauding; (4) the defendant obtained something of value from the injured person without giving just compensation; (5) the thing obtained was valued at more than or less than ... $200.00 ... (as for larceny, the value will determine the punishment).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment....”
    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.