Ledbetter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 6 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “****** “In considering the fourth inquiry, viz, whether Linda Fay Davidson, was at the time and before the carnal knowledge, a bawd, lewd, or kept female, it is necessary that you should understand the meaning of these words. “A bawd female is a female who keeps a house of prostitution, and conducts illicit intercourse. A lewd female is one given to unlawful indulgence of lust, either for sexual indulgence or for profit, and this lewdness may either be open, public and notorious, or committed in secret or private illicit intercourse. A kept female is one who is supported and kept by a man for his own illicit intercourse. “Our Supreme Court has defined a lewd female, within the meaning of the statute, to be a female sexually unchaste and impure by being guilty of illicit intercourse at and before the time alleged commission of the offense charged, no matter with what secrecy said acts may have been committed, and such acts need not be open, public and notorious; for the offense denounced by the statute is predicated upon the character rather than the reputation of the female for chastity and virtue and there can be no conviction for carnal knowledge of a female who is privately bawd, lewd, or publicly notorious, at the time and before the carnal knowledge or act charged. “The question is, whether she is actually chaste and virtuous at the time of the alleged carnal knowledge. In other words, the reputation for want of chastity is not a conclusive defense, for the offense is pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 155 - Mangrum v. State

2. ““The offense which is defined and denounced by our statute is predicated upon both the character and reputation of the female for chastity and virtue. * * *; while evidence of her reputation for want of chastity (where she is over fourteen years of age) is recognized as a valid defense, even though no act of intercourse is shown. We think, as did the Court in Jamison v. State, 117 Term. 58, 59, 94 S.W. 675 , 678, that 'the idea clearly intended to be conveyed under the age of consent statute is that of unchastity, in the sense of sexual impurity.’ Most all of the cases construing similar statutes convey the same idea. This intention, however, in nowise conflicts with the views herein expressed that a woman may have a reputation for ‘sexual impurity’ where there is no evidence showing a specific act of intercourse; and where she has made such a reputation, and it exists at the time of the offense against her, it is a complete defense to an indictment under the statute.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 155 - Mangrum v. State

3. “lascivious, lecherous; tending to excite lustful thoughts”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.