State v. Crank’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Jackson v. Denno (1964), State v. Fouquette (1950)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 315
Relies on Bram v. United States · Hauk v. State · Fisher v. State · Brister v. State · People v. Creeks
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But it is contended that even the short form of the statute sets forth the name of the person murdered, and such name is thereby made a requirement. This is untenable. If the name of the victim is known it should be alleged. If unknown, it should be alleged that the victim was a human being, or words of equal import, whose name was to the accuser unknown. Such allegation has uniformly been held sufficient even under the long form indictment or information. Trumble v. Territory of Wyoming, 3 Wyo. 280 , 21 P. 1081 , 6 L.R.A. 384 [(1889)]; State v. Sartino, 216 Mo. 408 , 115 S.W. 1015 [(1909)]; Reed v. State, 16 Ark. 499 [(1855)]; 30 C.J. 94, 26 Am. Juris. 329; People v. Gormach, 302 Ill. 332 , 134 N.E. 756 , 29 A.L.R. 1120 [(1922)]; Bishop, New Crim. Proc. 412. There must, however, be some facts then supplied to identify the victim, to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, and to identify the crime, for the protection of defendant, in case defendant is acquitted, or placed in jeopardy and again charged with the same offense.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wilson · Edmund v. State“in effect, that as far as such offense is concerned, a man may not in law be considered as having committed it; he may not, within the spirit of the law be properly accused thereof or charged therewith.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stewart · James v. Galetka“Statutes of limitations in criminal cases are considered ... a surrendering by the sovereign of its right to prosecute. They create a bar to prosecution and are therefore not merely statutes of repose as they are in civil cases. A criminal statute of limitations is not a mere limitation upon the remedy, but one upon the power of the sovereign to act against the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. James v. Galetka
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.