Simmons v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Hook v. State (1989), McKnight v. State (1977)
95 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 Pointer v. United States · State v. Lassotovitch · Commonwealth v. Coe · Lanasa v. State · Bloomer v. State
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the meaning of the verdict is so unmistakable, mere inartificiality in its form will not be sufficient to defeat justice by a nullification of a verdict which plainly declared the intent of the jury to convict on all the counts charging the crime of false pretenses and to acquit on all the counts charging the crime of larceny.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The matter of a misjoinder is generally left to the discretion of the trial court, and the courts will guard against injustice and abuse whenever apparent, and not permit such a joinder of counts as will embarrass the traverser in his defense by, in the court’s sound discretion, quashing the indictment, permitting a nolle prosequi as to a count or counts, or compelling the prosecution to elect on which count or counts to proceed. ...” Simmons v. State, 165 Md. 155, 165-66 , 167 A. 60 (1933) (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McKnight v. State““While . . . the money did not manually pass from the possession of the bank to the actual possession of the traverser, the money of the bank was so situated that the bank could and did make a complete transfer of the money to the traverser without actual delivery to him; and such transfer was effected by the bank paying out its money on the order of the traverser to his nominees by reason of the prior false and fraudulent pretense or representation by the traverser to the bank . . . .” 165 Md. at 162 , 167 A. at 63 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Urciolo v. State
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.