State v. Chick’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 1982
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Charette · Blum v. State · State v. Doran · Alderman v. People · State v. Mayberry
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This Court has stated that, in conspiracy cases, if the deed to be accom plished or purpose to be promoted by the confederacy is in itself criminal or unlawful in that it is descriptive of a well defined and well recognized criminal offense, the nature of which is perfectly understood by the name by which it is designated such as murder, robbery or rape, no further description of the intended crime need be made and the particular means to be used in the commission of the intended criminal offense need not be set out in the indictment. State v. Bartlett, 1849, 30 Me. 132 ; State v. Ripley, 1850, 31 Me. 386 . When the means, by which the object of the conspiracy is to be accomplished are not set forth in the indictment as in the instant case, the purpose itself should appear to be unequivocally illegal and forbidden by law, or the indictment cannot be sustained. The charge must, in the totality of its averments, point up the criminality of the purpose underlying the conspiracy, and when the intended object of the unlawful combine as described does not appear to be in and of itself criminal or unlawful, then the particular unlawful means upon which the plotted activity rests must he distinctly set out therein. Berger v. State, [ 147 Me. 111 , 83 A.2d 571 ]; State v. Hewett, 1850, 31 Me. 396 .” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Whoever, verbally or by written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of a crime or offense, or to injure his person or property, with intent thereby to extort money or to procure any advantage from him, or to compel him to do any act against his will, when such offense is of a high and aggravated nature, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years; but when such offense is not of a high and aggravated nature, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for not more than 11 months.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. James · State v. King““These constitutional mandates require that every fact or circumstance necessary to make out a prima facie case of the commission of the crime charged be stated or described in the indictment. Berger v. State, 1951, 147 Me. 111 , 83 A.2d 571 . These requirements are satisfied when the indictment contains such plain, concise and definite allegations' of the essential facts constituting the intended offense as shall adequately apprise an accused of reasonable and normal intelligence of the criminal act charged and the nature thereof, sufficiently enabling him to defend and, upon conviction or acquittal, to make use of the judgment as a basis of a plea of former jeopardy, should the occasion arise.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Toppi · State v. Farmer
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.