Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education (1973), Evans v. Board of County Commissioners (1971)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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 Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co · 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District · 18 Ill. 2d 11 - Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 · Holytz v. City of Milwaukee · Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court in the proper performance of its judicial function is required to examine its prior precedents. When precedent is examined in light of modern reality and it is evident that the reason for the precedent no longer exists, the abandonment of the precedent is not a destruction of stare decisis but rather a fulfillment of its proper function. Stare decisis is not a confining phenomenon but rather a principle of law. And when the application of this principle will not result in justice, it is evident that the doctrine is not properly applicable.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * future causes of action arising on or after 60 days subsequent to the adjournment of the First Regular Session of the Forty-First Idaho State Legislature unless legislation is enacted at that session with respect to the abolition of the sovereign immunity of the state.” Smith, supra, at 808 , 473 P.2d at 950 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) knows of or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover such condition, and (2) should realize that the condition, involves an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the highways, and (3) should expect that persons using the highways will not discover or realize the danger, and (4) fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe or to adequately warn of the condition and the risk involved, and, (5) the persons using the highway do not know or have reason to know of the condition and attendant risks.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.