State v. Ricks’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 1983 · most notably 426 So. 2d 140 - State v. Manuel (1983), Giamalva v. Cooper (1950)
25 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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Lawton v. Steele · John Fischer v. City of St Louis · Samuels v. McCurdy · City of New Orleans v. CharouLeau
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.
““The first point that the slot machine is not of the type described by Act No. 231 of 1928 is predicated upon the notion that, be cause the machine is mechanically arranged so that it does not automatically eject the prizes that may be won by the player, it is not per se a gambling device. “The argument cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that the machine was used’ for gambling; that it has all of the characteristics of a slot machine, other than the automatic ejection of money or tokens redeemable in money or property, or rather, it has been so fixed that it cannot pay off automatically (but it may be converted into an automatic pay-off machine within a short space of time by a qualified mechanic). The statute has for its purpose the immediate confiscation of 'all gambling devices known as slot machines * * * It is difficult to discern that the plugging of the automatic pay off has the magical effect of placing the machine beyond the pale of the law.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . all gambling devices known as slot machines that may come to their attention, or that they may find in operation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““And the fact that destruction of the slot machine is ordered without notice or hearing does not render the statute unconstitutional as depriving any claimant thereto of due process — as he cannot have or acquire property rights in the condemned article.””
2 later decisions 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.