Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 ARK 549 - Loudermilk v. State

Loudermilk v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
May 1940
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 1940

16 state decisions

601913192019301940decided

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 Greene v. People · People v. Ennis · Smith v. State · People v. De Carlo · Buell v. State

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

  1. ““In indictments for perjury, it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offense charged, and by what court or before whom the oath or affirmation was taken, averring such court or person to have competent' authority to' administer the same, together with the proper averments to falsify the matter wherein the perjury is charged or assigned, without setting forth any part of the record, proceedings or processes either in law or equity, or any commission or authority of the court or person before whom the perjury was committed, or the form of the oath or affirmation, or the manner of administering the same. ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In an indictment for perjury, the authority of the officer to administer the oath must be shown by proper averment. If it is not, the indictment will be fatally defective. This may be done either by an express averment that the officer had authority, or by setting out such •facts as make it judicially appear that he had such authority. Where the'authority of the officer to administer the oath fully appears by the facts set forth in the indictment, the formal allegation of his authority is unnecessary, since the court will take judicial notice thereof.””
    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.