Kreamer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant’s learned counsel very earnestly insist in their brief of this cause that the indictment, the substance of which we have heretofore given, is bad for duplicity, in this: That it charges in a single count the unlawful sale of spirituous, vinous, malt, and intoxicating liquors. The indictment is badly constructed, and, on that score, it justly subject to criticism; but we do not think it can be correctly charged with duplicity, in the proper sense of that term, as applied to an indictment or other pleading. It charges a single sale to one person only, for one price, of a number of commodities, the unlawful sale of either one of which commodities would, under the statute, constitute a public offense. In other words, the indictment charges appellant with only one public pífense, punishable with only one punishment. In the recent cases of Davis v. State, 100 Ind. 154 , and Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156 , we have held, and correctly so, we think, that such an indictment is not bad for duplicity. See, also, Stockwell v. State, 85 Ind. 522 ; Stout v. State, 93 Ind. 150 ; Stout v. State, 96 Ind. 407 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 Tex. Crim. 140 - Trevinio v. State