Commonwealth v. Wilkinson’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1954
5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The manifest object of this act was the preservation of game within this commonwealth. We cannot assume that it was intended to preserve game elsewhere, and it would be a forced construction to hold that it was intended to exclude from our markets quail and other game killed In other states, where by the laws of those states the killing of it was lawful. * * * The law was not intended to have any extraterritorial effect, and if it was, it would be nugatory.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A careful reading of the language of the act shows that it applies only to game killed in this State out of season.” . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bucknam
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.