State v. Ragona’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 1976
12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Q. You are the defendant in the case? A. Yes, sir. “Q. Mrs. Hathaway, did you operate during the spring and summer of 1935 a house of ill fame at 634 Walnut Street in Waterloo? A. No, sir. * * * “The state then subjected her to a cross-examination covering the period of time set out in the information and concerning what happened at 634 Walnut street in Waterloo, Iowa. It will be noted that the question and answer propounded to the accused by her own counsel on direct examination was the ultimate question which the jury itself was to decide. This question and answer threw wide open the gates for the exploration of whether or not Anna Hathaway did in fact operate a house of ill fame at the place designated and during the said period of time. “It would, indeed, be a strange doctrine if the appellant were allowed to deny her guilt categorically, and then would be permitted to preclude the state from inquiring into her conduct with reference to the very matter in issue. She took the witness stand of her own free will, as she had a right to do, and by answering one question she denied her guilt. That question covered the time, the spring and summer of 1935; also, whether she was operating a house of ill fame during that period of time. The state had a right to' ascertain from her what happened during the spring and summer of 1935 at the residence described. It had a right to-ascertain from her what connection she had with the operation of the house at 634 Walnut street, Waterloo,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Ivory““ ‘Q. You are the defendant in the case? A. Yes, sir. “ ‘Q. Mrs. Hathaway, did you operate during the spring and summer of 1935 a house of ill fame at 634 Walnut Street in Waterloo? A. No, sir.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ivory · State v. Jensen
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.