Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 22 Ala. App. 165 - Cheatwood v. State

22 Ala. App. 165 - Cheatwood v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
March 1996
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 1996 · most notably Sorrell v. State (1947), Burns v. State (1944)

39 state decisions

12019271930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Malachi v. State · Ross v. State · Henderson v. State · Ex Parte Jimmerson · 19 Ala. App. 407 - Segars 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * There was no demurrer to the indictment. As to the contents of the building, this indictment is the same as in the case of McCormick v. State, 141 Ala. 75 , 37 So. 377 , where it was held that the words ‘things of value’ were descriptive of watches (cigarettes here). It was further held that, as to the goods or merchandise, it was not necessary to either aver or prove value. And in Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 23 , 45 Am. Rep. 72 , it is held that, where the indictment describes the specific class of articles mentioned in the statute as kept in the building for use, sale, or deposit— as, for example, either goods or merchandise — the law conclusively presumes that they are of value, and no averment need be made in the indictment to this effect. * * * ””
    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.