State v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Bishop (1969), Porter v. Eyer (1956)
4 federal appellate · 37 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.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the general rule that evidence of other acts or offenses is not admissible to prove the commission of the act complained of. State v. Howard, 108 Vt. 137, 151 , 183 A. 497 . But such evidence is admissible in a proper case. See State v. Donaluzzi, 94 Vt. 142, 145 , 109 A. 57 , and cases there cited. The controlling question is: Is the evidence relevant — does it tend to prove any fact material to the issues in the case? If the evidence is admissible on other general grounds, it is no objection to its admission that it discloses other offenses, even though they are indictable. State v. Donaluzzi, supra. Testimony is admitted to show motive, intent, knowledge, a plan or purpose, or preparation, leading up to or connecting the respondent with the commission of the offense, although it involves proof of a distinct crime. State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531, 534, 535 , 27 A. 203 ; State v. Eastwood, 73 Vt. 205, 207 , 50 A. 1077 ; State v. Sargood and Doyle, 77 Vt. 80, 85, 86 , 58 A. 971 ; State v. Donaluzzi, supra; State v. Williams, 94 Vt. 423, 430 , 111 A. 701 ; State v. Winters, 102 Vt. 36, 50 , 145 A. 413 ; State v. Howard, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bogart“) (citation omitted). When words of common use are found in a statute, they are to be taken in their ordinary sense, unless a contrary intention is evident. See State v. Levine, 117 Vt. 320, 322 , 91 A.2d 678, 679 (1952). Generally, in the construction of statutes, the plain, ordinary meaning of the word”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parker v. Gorczyk
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.