Langford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"That Albert Langford late of the County aforesaid, on or before the 5th day of October and in the year of our Lord, 1959, in the County and State aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, being then and there the manager and agent of Ben Walker, Sr. and Ben Walker, Jr.'s cattle farm, did then and there by virtue of his employment as such manager and agent have under his care two red white-face Hereford heifers, one weighing approximately 500 pounds of the value of $125.00 and the other weighing approximately 450 pounds of the value of $115.00, good and lawful money of the United States of America, both said heifers having a V notch and tatoo marks in ear of each heifer, a better description being to the grand jurors unknown, said 2 heifers being of the aggregate value of approximately $240.00, good and lawful money of the United States of America, which said property had come into his possession and had been intrusted to his care and keeping by virtue of his said employment as such manager and agent as aforesaid, and did afterwards then and there, without the consent of said Ben Walker, Sr. or said Ben Walker, Jr. wilfully, unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously embezzled said property and fraudulently and feloniously convert same to his own use and benefit. " (Emphasis added). ( 239 Miss. at 485, 486 , 123 So.2d at 615 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Westmoreland v. State

2. “In this case there is no statement at all in the indictment as to the ownership of the property. In Herron v. State, 118 Miss. 420 , 79 So. 289 , it was held: "Since the omitted allegation goes to the very essence of the offense attempted to be charged the omission thereof was not waived by appellant's failure to demur thereto." We have numerous cases in Mississippi holding to this effect, Cook v. State, 72 Miss. 517 , 17 So. 228 ; Hughes v. State, 74 Miss. 368 , 20 So. 838 ; Taylor v. State, 74 Miss. 544 , 21 So. 129 ; McGaha v. State, 173 Miss. 829 , 163 So. 442 ; Robinson v. State, 180 Miss. 774 , 178 So. 588 ; Crosby v. State, 191 Miss. 173 , 2 So.2d 813 ; Kelly v. State, 204 Miss. 79 , 36 So.2d 925 ; Love v. State, 211 Miss. 606 , 52 So.2d 470 ; Cohran v. State, 219 Miss. 767 , 70 So.2d 46 . ( 239 Miss. at 487, 488 , 123 So.2d at 616 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Westmoreland v. State

3. “The appellant failed to demur to this indictment but he objected to the testimony as to ownership of the property, moved for a directed verdict and requested the Court to peremptorily instruct the jury to find him not guilty. There was also a motion for a new trial, due to the fact that the indictment in this case was void because it did not set out who owned the property alleged to be embezzled. (Id. at 486, 123 So.2d at 616 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Westmoreland v. State