Pine v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Webb v. Commonwealth (1963), Snead v. Smyth (1959)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 67 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.
Relationships
Relies on Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · United States v. Cruikshank · Pointer v. United States · James Clark Distilling Company v. Western Maryland Railway Company · United States v. Cook
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every indictment is based upon the existence of a valid law annexing a penalty to the offense charged. If that law is unconstitutional, it is void. It is no law at all, and there is no penalty to inflict. So soon, therefore, as this fact is brought to the attention of the court in any way, whether by demurrer, pleas, motion, or otherwise, the case is at once dismissed, as there is no offense to be punished. It need not be specially pleaded. This rule applies to the appellate court as well as the trial court, although the point is made in the appellate court for the first time. Adkins v. City of Richmond, 98 Va. 91 , 34 S.E. 967 , 47 L.R.A. 583 , 81 Am. St. Rep. 705 , and cases cited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“fails to give the information necessary to enable the defendant to concert his defense, such information may be supplied by a bill of particulars”
1 later decision 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.