Duff-Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2012
4 federal appellate · 15 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Adams v. Texas · Quinones v. State · Cumbie v. State · Edwards 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the new penal code, the legislature eliminated the distinction between principals and accomplices and the attendant complexities in drafting indictments ... V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 7.01(c) now plainly requires that we hold a party to an offense may be charged with the offense without alleging the facts which make the defendant a party to the offense and criminally responsible for the conduct of another. If the evidence supports a charge on the law of parties, as it does here, the court may charge on the law of parties even though there is no such allegation in the indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sklar v. State“[i]t is well settled that the proper procedure when alleging surprise due to violation of a trial court's order for discovery is to object or ask for a postponement or continuance of the trial.”
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.