Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 N.J.L. 219 - State v. Murzda

State v. Murzda’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
6
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably State v. Labato (1951), Gangemi v. Berry (1957)

56 state decisions

20019361940195019601970198019902000decided

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 William Marbury v. James Madison · Downes v. Bidwell · Sturges v. Crowninshield · 118 N.J. Eq. 504 - State Ex Rel. State Board of Milk Control v. Newark Milk Co. · Newell v. People Ex Rel. Phelps

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

  1. ““* * * The purpose of judicial interpretation is the discovery of The true sense of the form of words which are used * * *. taking all its parts hito consideration, and if fairly possible, giving them all effect.’ Orvil v. Woodcliff, 64 N. J. L. 286. Whether the subject-matter of such interpretative inquiry be an agreement between parties, a statute, or a constitution, the object is The thought which it expresses.’ Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 9, 97 .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““And it is to be borne in mind that neither purchase of the ticket, nor the possessor’s intent to sell it, or to participate in a lottery, is an ingredient of the possession made punishable by the statute under consideration, nor its predecessor act of 1895, supra. The possession of such tickets or slips may not be characterized by an intent to put them to an unlawful use. Yet it tends to create both opportunity and temptation to infringe the law against lotteries; and the object of the statute is plainly to strike at the evil in its inception by a measure that is primarily preventive in character.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No lottery shall be authorized by the legislature or otherwise in this state; and no ticket in any lottery shall be bought or sold within this state, nor shall pool-selling, book-making or gambling of any kind be authorized or allowed within this state, nor shall any gambling device, practice or game of chance now prohibited by law be legalized, or the remedy, penalty or punishment now provided therefor be in any way diminished.”
    2 later decisions 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.