State v. Langford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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

1. ““Art. 636. Officers to seize gaming tables “It shall be the duty of every * * * peace officer * * * to seize and take into his possession all gaming tables, devices and other equipments or paraphernalia of gambling houses * * *. Thereupon * * * the district judge shall * * * issue written notice to the owner * * * commanding him to appear * * * and show cause why such articles should not be destroyed. * * *” “Art. 637. Destroyed by order of court “Section 1. If upon hearing of the matter referred to in the preceding Article, the * * * District Judge * * * shall determine that the property seized is a gaming table or bank or is used as equipment or paraphernalia for a gambling house, and was being used for gaming purposes, he shall order same to be destroyed * * * “Sec. 2. If upon a hearing of the matter referred to in Article 636 * * * the * * * District Judge * * * shall determine that the property seized, or any part thereof, is not gambling paraphernalia per se, but that the same or any part thereof was used as equipment or paraphernalia for a gambling house and was being used for gaming purposes * * * he may, in his discretion * * * declare the same confiscated and cause the same to be delivered to the State of Texas * * * for its own use and benefit. * * * “Sec. 3. If upon a hearing of the matter referred to in Article 636 * * * the * * * District Judge * * * shall determine that the property seized is a gaming table, bank or gambling paraphernalia and equipment per se, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State

2. “The record shows that the four marble machines in question were owned and operated by Dewitt Langford and were exhibited under his direction by the other four appellees. The machines consisted of a playing board, in which there were a number of holes in which marbles used in playing the game could be lodged. The playing board was protected by a glass cover. Springs and resilient pins were driven into the surface of the playing boards for the purpose of diverting the marbles and causing them to roll in uncertain directions across the surface of the boards. The player in order to secure a marble with which to play the game was required to deposit a five-cent piece in a slot in the machine. When the coin was inserted in the slot the marble was released and was propelled by a plunger inside of the machine on to the playing board. The player could, through chance, obtain a designated number of free games by *Page 516 the marble striking a sufficient number of pins or falling into designated holes on the playing boards of said machines. If the score was not sufficiently high, no free games were won. It was possible to redeem the plays on each of said machines in cash or trade, but it was not shown that plays on any of the machines in question were so redeemed. Appellee Langford testified that he had directed the parties with whom said tables had been placed not to redeem plays on said machines in cash or trade.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Tex. Crim. 512 - Broaddus v. State

3. “Art. 619, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code, provides among other things that: 'Any such table, bank, wheel, machine or device shall be considered as used for gaming if money or anything of value is bet thereon.' "The controlling question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not free games won on the said machines constitute a thing of value within the meaning of said Art. 619, and thereby render said machines gambling paraphernalia, tables or devices. "Appellant contends that free games won are things of value, and that since the undisputed evidence shows that the machines in question were exhibited as contemplated by Art. 623, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code, which provides that 'The word "exhibited”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Tex. Crim. 512 - Broaddus v. State