Lott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Goff v. State (2009), Simmons v. State (1950)
27 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 Cook v. State · Carr v. State · Ferguson v. State · Reynolds v. State · Runnels 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Under the facts in this case we find nothing to cause us to feel that the jury in the court was not fair and impartial. The laws respecting the listing, drawing, summoning and impaneling juries are directory and unless there is a radical departure from the statutory scheme of selecting and impaneling the jury this Court will not reverse. We do not feel there has been such a departure here and the lower court was correct in overruling the motion to quash." Id. at 625 , 37 So.2d at 786 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well settled in this State that the possession of property recently stolen is a circumstance which may be considered by the jury and from which, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, the jury may infer guilt of larceny. Lott v. State, 204 Miss. 610 , 37 So.2d 782 ; Haney v. State, 199 Miss. 568 , 24 So.2d 778 ; Moody v. State, 181 Miss. 277 , 179 So. 335 ; Huddleston v. State, 220 Miss. 292 , 70 So.2d 621 ; Fletcher v. State, 168 Miss. 361 , 151 So. 477 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Engbrecht v. State“Before swearing any grand juror as such, he shall be examined by the court, on oath, touching his qualifications; and, after the grand jurors shall have been sworn and impaneled, no objection shall be raised, by plea or otherwise, to the grand jury; but the impaneling of the grand jury shall be conclusive evidence of its competency and qualifications; but any party interested may challenge or except to the array for fraud.”
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.