Lutz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Davis v. Slater (2004), Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti (2000)
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 131 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 Heiskell v. Mayor & City Council · Harrison v. State ex rel. Harrison · Hooper v. Mayor of Baltimore · Greenwood v. Greenwood · Beard 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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he rules of the common law are not to be ... overturned except by clear and unambiguous language. In order to hold that a statute has abrogated common law rights existing at the date of its enactment, it must clearly appear that they are repugnant to the act,, or the part thereof invoked, that their survival would in effect deprive it of its efficacy and render its provisions nugatory.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It follows that, as the first count of each indictment describes an offense cognizable at common law, and since that law as to that offense has not been repealed, and since each count concludes ‘against the peace, government and dignity of the state,’ the demurrers to them were properly overruled. The additional allegation in the Lutz case that the offense charged was against the form of the statute may be disregarded as surplusage.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As a rule of exposition, statutes are to be construed in reference to the principles of the common law. For it is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended to make any innovation upon the common law, further than the case absolutely required. The law rather infers that the Act did not intend to make any alteration other than what is specified, and besides what has been plainly pronounced." (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.