Smith v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1991
10 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 Olden v. Paxton · Pfirman v. Probate Court · State Ex Rel. Bank of Eagle v. Leonardson · Murphy v. McCarty · 61 Cal. App. 300 - People v. Crawford
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.
“"The ruling of the district court may or may not be correct, but the law provides a `plain, speedy, and adequate' means of testing that question by appeal. It never was the intention or meaning either of the common law or the statute that writs of prohibition or habeas corpus should take the place of appeals. We are not at all in accord with the counsel's idea of what constitutes an `adequate remedy.' The adequacy of a remedy is not to be tested by the convenience or inconvenience of the parties to a particular case. If such a rule were to obtain, the law of appeals might as well be abrogated at once. * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“substantive issues [of law] generally are not appropriate areas of consideration in a mandamus proceeding and are to be considered only if other adequate legal remedy is unavailable. " (Emphasis added.) This latter statement is based on I.C. § 7-303 which limits the writ to "cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There are no .circumstances shown in the amended application for writ of prohibition that are exceptional nor is it shown that any present right of applicant will be jeopardized 'by requiring him to pursue his remedy by appeal or that any hardships exist in this case over and above those ordinarily borne by a defendant in a criminal prosecution.””
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.