20 N.J. Super. 317 - State v. Lombardo’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1979
15 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 Frisbie v. United States · State v. Ellenstein · 13 N.J. Super. 172 - State v. Western Union Telegraph Co. · State v. Norton · State v. Kowalczyk
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.
““However progressively liberal has become the legislative and judicial attitude toward the literal composition of indictments (see R.S. 2:188-5, 6, 7, 9, N.J.S.A.; Rules 2:4-11, 13) and the discretionary disinclination to quash them unless palpably defective (State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 13 N.J. Super. 172 , 80 A.2d 342 (Cty. Ct. 1951), yet it is basically imperative that an indictment allege every essential element of the crime sought to be charged. [Citations.] “The omission of an essential element cannot be supplied by inference or implication. [Citations.] ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However progressively liberal has become the legislative and judicial attitude toward the literal composition of indictments (see R.S. 2:188-5, 6, 7, 9 [not reenacted in N.J.S. 2 A ]; Rules 2:4-11, 13) and the discretionary disinclination to quash them unless palpably defective ( State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 13 N.J. Super. 172 ( Cty. Ct. 1951), yet it is basically imperative that an indictment allege every essential element of the crime sought to be charged. State v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625 ( Sup. Ct. 1895); State v. Bleichner, 11 N.J. Super. 542 ( App. Div. 1951). The omission of an essential element cannot be supplied by inference or implication. State v. De Vita, 6 N.J. Super. 344 ( App. Div. 1950); State v. Lustig, 13 N.J. Super. 149 ( App. Div. 1951).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.