Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 N.J.L. 85 - State v. Yanetti

State v. Yanetti’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 1953
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1953

8 state decisions

501925193019401950decided

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 State v. Lee · State v. Shapiro · State v. Calabrese · Burhans v. City of Paterson

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.

  1. “In State v. Shapiro, 89 N.J.L. 319, 322 [ E. & A. 1916], this court held that where the date is not of the essence of the offense, it is not necessary to prove that it was committed on the date laid in the indictment. In that respect it is always open to the state to offer proof that the offense charged was committed on any day within the period not covered by the statute of limitations. We hold that in an indictment for carnal abuse the averment of the time of the commission of the act is formal and not of the essence of the offense, because it is not a legal constituent of the crime, which is a crime whenever committed; and in a prosecution for carnal abuse, proof from which it may be inferred that the offense was committed on the day named in the indictment or on any day without the statute of limitations, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
    1 later decision 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.