State v. Guidry’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Williams (1978), State v. Hingle (1962)
79 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 James Graham v. State of West Virginia · John McDonald v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · State v. Wilson · Commonwealth v. Graves · State v. Hutchinson
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * `[A] law is not objectionable as ex post facto which, in providing for the punishment of future offenses, authorizes the offender's conduct in the past to be taken into account, and the punishment to be graduated accordingly. Heavier penalties are often provided by law for a second or any subsequent offense than for the first, and it has not been deemed objectionable that, in providing for such heavier penalties, the prior conviction authorized to be taken into the account may have taken place before the law was passed. In such case, it is the second or subsequent offense, that is punished, not the first.' McDonald v. Mass., 180 U.S. page 311, 21 S.Ct. 389 , 45 L.Ed. 542; State of Iowa ex rel. Gregory v. Jones, Warden (D.C.) 128 F. 626 ; Com. v. Graves, 155 Mass. 163 , 29 N.E. page 579, 16 L.R.A. 256 . See, also, In re Allen, 91 Ohio St. 315 , 110 N.E. 535 , 537; Blackburn v. State, 50 Ohio St. 428 , 36 N.E. 18 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The act itself does not expressly require, nor does the language by fair implication authorize, the submission to a jury of the fact as to whether the defendant was a second offender.””
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.