Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 Ark. 903 - Prather v. State

Prather v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
4
states following
December 1973
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 1973

3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

6019351940195019601970decided

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 Satterfield v. State · Jones 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Therefore, should we follow the theory upon which this case is presented to us by appellant, that is to say, if the tools, devices, appliances, or materials were such as might be reasonably used on proper occasions by honest workmen in the prosecution of their respective vocations, then the statute would most probably be futile, so far as its enforcement is concerned. At least, courts and juries would be unable to convict any burglar or any man who might be indicted, unless there was found in the possession of such person some tool, manufactured for or used by burglars, and which would be unsuited for use otherwise. Such construction of this statute would be unwise and would tend to defeat its beneficent purpose in the protection of society against professional lawbreakers. “Perhaps, no fixed rule or announcement should be made as a criterion for guilt or innocence, except that in every instance the matter under investigation should be determined as a matter of fact, [our emphasis 5 controlled or explained by all of the conditions, circumstances, and such pertinent collateral matters as might be present.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Any person who . . . has in his custody . . . any tools, false key, lockpiek, bit, nippers, fuse, force screw, punch drill, jimmy, bit, or any material, implement or other mechanical device whatsoever, adapted, designed or commonly nsed for breaking into any vanlt, safe, railroad car, boat, vessel, warehouse, store, shop, office, dwelling house, or door, shutter, or window of a building of any kind, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than [2] years, nor more than ten [10] years.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Perhaps, no fixed rule or announcement should he made as a criterion for guilt or innocence, except that in every instance the matter under investigation should be determined as a matter of fact, controlled or explained by all of the conditions, circumstances, and such pertinent collateral matters as might he present.” [Emphasis added]”
    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.