Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 Ala. App. 575 - Jordan v. State

17 Ala. App. 575 - Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1920

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
October 1991
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 1991 · most notably 49 Ala. App. 726 - Bills v. State (1973), Wertheimer & Goldberg v. State (1929)

48 state decisions

14019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Sanders v. State · Martin v. State · Thomas v. State · Jeffries v. State · Collins 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In order to sustain a charge of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, knowing that it was stolen, and not having the intent to restore the same to the owner, etc., it is necessary to show by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty: (1) That the goods in question had been feloniously taken and carried away, as charged in the indictment, by some one; (2) that the defendant bought, received, concealed, or aided in concealing these goods, knowing at the time that they were stolen; and (3) that he so bought, received, concealed, or aided in concealing these goods knowing that they were stolen, and not having the intent to restore same to the owner.””
    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.