Quidley v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Managing, etc., a lottery, etc., or buying, selling, etc., chances.—If any person: “(1) Set up, promote or be concerned in managing or drawing a lottery or raffle for money or other thing of value, “(2) Knowingly permit such lottery in any house under his control, “(3) Knowingly permit money or other property to be raffled for in such house, or to be won therein, by throwing or using dice, or by any other game of chance, “(4) Knowingly permit the sale in such house of any chance or ticket in, or share of a ticket in, a lottery, or any writing, certificate, bill, token or other device purporting or intended to guarantee or assure to any person, or entitle him to a prize or share of, or interest in a prize to be drawn in a lottery, or, “(5) For himself or another person buy, sell or transfer, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale or with intent to exchange, negotiate or transfer, or aid in selling, exchanging, negotiating or transferring, a chance or ticket in or share of a ticket in a lottery, or any such writing, certificate, bill, token or device, “He shall be confined in jail not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding five hundred dollars; provided that any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section when such violation shall consist of the operation or conduct of a lottery commonly known as the numbers game or the numbers racket shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than ten years and fined not less than ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bryson v. Commonwealth

2. “. “We need spend little time or space upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to connect Quidley and Clanton with promotion or concern in managing or drawing a lottery. . The Commonwealth made out a prima facie case, and the owners and claimants of the property offered no proof in contradiction. “It is nowhere questioned that the numbers game is a lottery. It is a form of gambling which has become quite prevalent. We have had for consideration in recent years numerous cases involving the offense. [Citing cases.] “The possession of a large number of duplicate tickets evidencing chances in such a lottery is relevant and convincing proof that the person is concerned in promoting, managing, or drawing the lottery. The sale, the possession of the evidence of the sale, the collection of the slips, and delivery of them and the money are necessary steps in the operation of the venture. Each step constitutes aid in its conduct.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Artis v. Commonwealth

3. ““There was no description of the money found on Clanton except as to its amount. The mere fact that he had $25.86 on his person is not indicative of its use in promoting a lottery or that it was the proceeds from the operation of a lottery. There is not shown any direct or circumstantial connection between this money and the lottery. For that reason we think the trial judge erred in forfeiting the $25.86. The amount should be released to Herbert Clanton.” 190 Va. at 1039-40 , 59 S. E. 2d at 57 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Plummer v. Commonwealth