Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 ALA 54 - Barddell v. State

Barddell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
October 1979
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 1979

22 state decisions

8019061910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Grant v. State · Thompson v. State · McGehee v. State · Duvall v. State · State v. Murphy

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

  1. ““So, in this case, we think it may be correctly said that the court judicially knew there was, at the time of the alleged robbery, in the United States a lawful current coin, representing the value of five cents, called a nickel, and that there was no money called a nickel other than such lawful coin of the United States of America which was known as a nickel; and the presiding judge committed no error in saying to counsel for defendant that he knew of no money called a nickel except lawful coin of the United States, and that he would so charge the jury. This being true, it is unnecessary to determine that the court had such judicial knowledge with regard to the dime; for if the proof, supplemented by judicial knowledge, was sufficient with respect of the nickel, it was not indispensable to make proof with regard to the dime.””
    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.