214 Mo. App. 536 - State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1924
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2001
6 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.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have not been able to find where this section has been construed, but the character of the amendment of 1913 is plain. The Legislature evidently intended to make it mandatory upon the trial court to grant a continuance when a proper affidavit' was filed under what is now section 1388, R. S. 1919. Counter affidavits have no place under this section. This section provides that if it shall appear to the court by affidavit that ‘any attorney ... of such party is a member of either house of the General Assembly, and in actual attendance on the session of the same, and that the attendance of such . . . attorney ... is necessary to a fair and proper trial,’ then the court shall continue. All of this appeared by affidavit, and the trial court had no discretion.””
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.