Smith v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “We doubt that it would have been proper for a court to have judicially noticed a vitally contested bit of imperative proof, such as the three essential dates in the indictment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Wallace v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-02-17· cited 26×
• Langham v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-12-07· cited 22×
• Garcia v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-10-26· cited 21×
• Piper v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1972-06-28· cited 17×
• Mason v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-11-02· cited 11×
• Hawkins v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1974-03-27· cited 7×
• Kotlar v. State
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1986-02-13· cited 5×
• Barnwell v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1974-02-06· cited 2×
• David Anthony Lockett v. the State of Texas
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2025-08-21

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Chapman v. California
  Supreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
• Gilbert v. California
  Supreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 3,797×
• Harrington v. California
  Supreme Court· 1969-06-02· cited 2,732×
• Martinez v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1969-01-08· cited 212×
• Rogers v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1960-03-23· cited 67×
• Platt v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1966-05-18· cited 29×
• Urban v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1965-01-13· cited 18×
• Lee v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1966-04-06· cited 14×
• Gomez v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1963-02-06· cited 10×