271 F. Supp. 24 - Dotson v. Boles’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · 137 W. Va. 1 - State v. Blankenship · Martin v. Commonwealth of Virginia · 131 W. Va. 141 - State v. Cutlip · Young v. Boles
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no truth to the second factual allegation in this last claim. Since the proprietor had no direct access to the money in the machines, he would not know the actual amount by physical count. But he was certainly able to state correctly that the frequently used machines did have money in them, that it was not removed in the normal routine of business by the amusement company, and could testify as to the circumstances, as he knew them, surrounding the theft of the money. The enormous quantity of small change found in Dotson’s car at the time of his arrest, together with the coin boxes belonging to the machines, provided ample evidence to warrant the jury in finding him guilty of grand larceny . . .” (pp. 26-27.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Edwards
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.