Hightower v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 1996
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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.
Relationships
Relies on 135 Ohio St. 43 - Kraus v. City of Cleveland · Rankin v. Mills Novelty Co. · State v. Langford · Houghton v. Fox
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.
““As to the other machines (five in number), it is undisputed that none had any automatic ‘pay-off’ adjustment; and that the only result from playing thereof was the amusement of the player in securing a high score. No testimony whatever discloses an understanding on the part of any store proprietor to pay ‘over the counter’ for high or particular scores; or that any player was seen or permitted to bet on the machines’ operation. Notwithstanding this state of the record, however, the trial court found, among other things, that ‘each of these machines is so equipped that by slight mechanical changes the automatic pay-off, whereby the machines automatically pay off certain amounts of money when a designated score is made, can be attached to the machines and so operated automatically ; * * ””
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.