State v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 2002 · most notably People v. Grogan (1932), Amsel v. Brooks (1954)
10 federal appellate · 87 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Morey v. Commonwealth · Ex Parte Daniels · Commonwealth v. Pentz · Gordon v. State · Pietrycka v. Simolan
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The validity of a statute prescribing a penalty for a given act of this character requires that the elements of the offense be stated with legal certainty. State v. Carpenter, 60 Conn. 97 ( 22 Atl. 497 ); Commonwealth v. Pentz, 247 Mass. 500 ( 143 N. E. 322 ); Huddy on Automobiles (8th Ed.), § 892; Berry on Automobiles (5th Ed.), § 1796. “Various and conflicting decisions are found in different jurisdictions as to the validity of statutory provisions attacked for failure to meet this requirement. Thus in Texas, a statute making it an offense to drive automobiles other than in a careful manner, has been held void on this ground; Russell v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. 512 ( 228 S. W. 566 ); and in Georgia, a statute has been held void which prohibited driving so as to endanger the property or life or limb of any person. Howard v. State, 151 Ga. 845 ( 108 S. E. 513 ); Carter v. State, 12 Ga. App. 430 ( 78 S. E. 205 ). Both of these provisions would be held valid in this State. “In most jurisdictions statutes will not be held void for uncertainty if a practicable or sensible effect may be given to them. 3 Blashfield Cyc. of Automobile Law, p. 2045, § 3. So, statutes prohibiting an unreasonable rate of speed are generally sus tained. Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636 ( 192 Pac. 442 , 21 A. L. R. 1172); People v. Beak, 291 Ill. 449 ( 126 N. E. 201 ); Gallaher v. State, 193 Ind. 629 ( 141 N. E. 347 , 29 A. L. R. 1059); State v. Schaeffer, 96 Ohio St. 215 ( 117 N. E. 220 , L. R. A. 1918 B, 945,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. McMurchy“Also without merit is the claim of error in the charge upon the law concerning driving under the influence of liquor. The charge contains a full and careful statement of our law upon this feature of the case. Under the provisions of our statute, this offense is established when the evidence shows that the driver of an automobile, by reason of having drunk intoxicating liquor, had become so affected in his mental, physical, or nervous processes that he lacked to an appreciable degree the ability to function properly in relation to the operation of the machine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.