State v. Coltharp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We are unable to apprehend wherein the indictment fails to be specific in presenting an indictment on this statutory charge. This indictment was drawn under section 889, Code 1930, is substantially in the language thereof, and is not subject to condemnation, as delineated in the case of State v. Cahn et al., 171 Miss. 458 , 158 So. 202 . The evidence upon which the state relies for a conviction is not necessary to be recited in an indictment. The indictment is quite sufficient to inform the appellee that he is called upon to answer a charge of the embezzlement of two thousand four hundred dollars. Generally, an indictment presented by virtue of a particular statute, which follows the language thereof, is sufficient. There are exceptions, but they are not referred to by the appellee, nor applicable in the case at bar. We think the court below was in error in sustaining the demurrer to the indictment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Labella