Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 LA 288 - State v. Dudenhefer

State v. Dudenhefer’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
February 1954
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1954

17 state decisions

70190819101920193019401950decided

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 State v. Markham · State v. Hoshor · State v. Palmer · State v. Eames · State v. Viator

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

  1. ““Despite this contention, we think we are right in holding that the state cannot under the law be held to prove how or in what manner the embezzlement occurred. Such requirement would frequently, we imagine, enable accused to escape punishment. The state is not necessarily concerned whether the defaulter loaned the money, or whatever use he may have made of it. It is sufficient if it appears that he is short in his accounts, or withholds settlement, or fails to pay over the moneys collected.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We will say in passing that offenses may be charged cumulatively in one count. The rule that a defendant must not be charged with having committed two or more offenses in one count of the indictment does not apply to cumulative offenses denounced in the same statute.””
    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.