Livingston v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Snead v. Smyth (1959), Ward v. Commonwealth (1964)
7 federal appellate · 39 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 Pine v. Commonwealth · Hanson v. Smyth · Sullivan v. Commonwealth · Farewell v. Commonwealth · Haynes v. Commonwealth
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that a bill of particulars is not for the purpose of charging the offense. The indictment must do that. The accused cannot be tried on a bill of particulars alone. However, the bill of particulars and the indictment must be read together. The function of the bill of particulars is to supply additional information concerning the accusation. The decisive consideration in each case is whether the matter claimed to be left out of the indictment has resulted in depriving the accused of a substantial right and subjects him to danger of being tried upon a charge for which he has not been indicted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. Commonwealth
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.