State v. Howe’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Glaesman (1996), State v. Jelliff (1977)
48 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Rice v. United States · 243 F. Supp. 160 - United States v. Luros · State v. Bringgold · Odom v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the information or indictment. It is not a device for summary trial of the evidence, and facts not appearing on the face of the information cannot be considered. The court is obliged to confine itself to the face of the information. Further, for purposes of the motion, all well- pleaded facts are taken to be true.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““An appeal may be taken by the state from: „ “1. An order quashing an information or indictment or any count thereof;”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““No precise words are necessary to convey a threat. It may be bluntly spoken, or done by innuendo or suggestion. In re Burke, 9 O.C.D. 350 , 17 Cr.Ct.R., N.S., 315 (1899). A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited. Herbert Burman, Inc. v. Local 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 214 F.Supp. 353 (S.D.N.Y.1963).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hass · State v. Norton
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.