Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2008
13 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
Applies 27 U.S.C. § 1
Relies on United States v. Cruikshank · United States v. Hess · Coblentz v. State · State v. Lassotovitch · State v. Petrushansky
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here the statute forbids the bribing of an officer to influence him in the performance of his official duties. The essence of the crime is the passing of money to the officer to influence the officer in the performance of his official duties * * °. The indictments are plainly laid in the words of the statute and are sufficient to inform the accused of the charge against him.” 59 A.2d at 339 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the trial of the cases under these indictments it was necessary for the State to prove the charges. If the accused were again charged with the same offenses, by producing the records in these cases he would be able to plead the judgments in any subsequent attempted prosecution. [Id. at 585.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spector v. State
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.