Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably State v. Perry (2010), State v. Bingham (1989)
50 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Brown v. Allen · United State v. Morgan · Coleman v. Alabama
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Error that is fundamental must be such error as goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or must go to the foundation of the case or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive. Each case will of necessity, under such a rule, stand on its own merits. Out of the facts in each case will arise the law.” Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469, 475, n. 13 , 491 P.2d 733, 739, n. 13 (1971) (quoting from State v. Garcia, 46 N.M. 302, 309 , 128 P.2d 459, 462 (1942).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Paz · State v. MacDonald“`mere trial errors' (which can be corrected only by direct appeal) and `fundamental errors' (which may be raised even though they could have been raised on appeal).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Matthews v. State · State v. Darbin“Until the allegations in an application for post-conviction relief are in some manner controverted by the state, they must be deemed to be true, no matter how incredible they may appear to the trial court or to this Court. A motion to dismiss, unsupported by affidavits or depositions, does not controvert the facts alleged in the petition. If, however, the allegations, though uncontroverted, would not entitle the applicant to relief even if proved, it is not error to dismiss the application without affording an evidentiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rodriguez v. State
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.