Lipschitz v. People’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 1980
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.
Relationships
Relies on Connor v. People · Garrett v. State · Stephens v. Clay · 10 Ohio St. 283 - Trustees of Brimfield v. Commissioners of Portage · West v. People
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.
“In apt words, the conspiracy is sufficiently alleged; but it is strenuously contended that the object of the conspiracy is not shown to be a crime. Arson is a recognized offense at common law, and under the doctrine of McNamara v. The People , 24 Colo. 61 ( 48 Pac. Rep. 541 ), it might have been sufficient, and probably would be, had the pleader stated the object of the conspiracy to be to commit the crime of arson by burning the building designated; in other words, by designating the purpose of the conspiracy by its common-law name. See, also, 2 Enc. of Law, 917, et seq. , and cases cited. But the pleader did not see fit to do that. He attempted to state the ingredients of the crime. In such a case, the law is that when the purpose of the conspiracy is claimed *Page 376 to be the commission of a crime, the indictment must contain every element necessary to constitute that offense, as fully as if the indictment was for its perpetration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Helser v. People“"In other words, the building, whether a `dwelling house,' or `other building,' if it belong to any other person, is the subject of arson, even though it be occupied by the defendant himself; or, to put the proposition in another form, the apparent intent of the legislature was not only to continue the common-law offense against the security of the dwelling house, but to protect property rights as well .... * * * * * * "Upon a careful examination of our statute, in the light of the authorities cited, and upon principle, we must hold that the protection of property rights under our statute is made as prominent as the protection of the security of the dwelling house, and is included therein." 25 Colo. at 266, 268 , 53 P. at 1113.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon a careful examination of our statute, in the light of the authorities cited, and upon principle, we must hold that the protection of property rights under our statute is made as prominent as the protection of the security of the dwelling house, and is included therein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.