Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 683 SW2D 393 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
4
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 103 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Harris v. State (1989), Cantu v. State (1992)

2 federal appellate · 103 state decisions

5801984199020002010decided

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 Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Woodson v. North Carolina · Barefoot v. Estelle

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

  1. ““(b) A challenge for cause may be made by the State for any of the following reasons: “(3) That he has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In order to complain of the improper exclusion of a qualified juror the defendant must show he was injured or forced to proceed with an objectionable juror. Page v. State, 486 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). See also Brown v. State, 508 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). A mere assertion in an appellate brief will not constitute the proper showing. In the instant case even if it can be argued that the action of the trial court was improper, there is no showing that appellant was tried by an unfair jury or was otherwise harmed. 7 The ground of error is overruled. [[Image here]]”
    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.