State v. Randall’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 53 Ill. 2d 62 - People v. Prim (1972), 19 Cal. 3d 835 - People v. Gainer (1977)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Allen v. United States · Doss v. State · State v. Thomas · State v. Voeckell · State v. Bosch
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * This is not in keeping with sound justice and the preservation of human liberties and security. We are convinced that the evils far outweigh the benefits, and decree that its use shall no longer be tolerated and approved by this court.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ferguson · State v. Steele““If any person shall willfully and without lawful authority, forcibly seize, confine, inveigle, decoy or kidnap any person, with intent to cause such person to be sent or taken out of this state, or to be secretly confined within, the same against his will, or shall forcibly cany or send such person out of this state against his will, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding ten (10) years. Any person charged with such offense may be tried in any county into or through which the person so seized, inveigled, decoyed or kidnapped shall have been taken, carried or brought.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Frodsham“In conferring together, you ought to pay proper respect to each others opinions and listen with disposition to be convinced of each others arguments ... if the majority are for acquittal, the minority ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not consider or alter the correctness of their judgment, which is not concurred in by most of those with whom they are associates, and discuss the weight or sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction in the minds of their fellows.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Steele
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.