Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 A.2d 288 - State v. Ferris

State v. Ferris’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2023

5 state decisions

20197119801990200020102020decided

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 State v. London · Milford Township Appeal · Hackett v. Gale · Koller v. Duggan · Cooper v. City of Miami

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

  1. ““In construing the ambiguous use of the general language of the statute we turn to the familiar rule of ejusdem generis. When words of enumeration are immediately followed by words of general import the general words, when their use is uncertain, should be governed by the specific. Here, the enumeration of devices specifically prohibited— ‘punch board, seal card, slot gambling machine’ — indicates that in adding the words ‘other implements, apparatus or materials of any form of gambling’ the Legislature intended to include only other articles which also have a per se relationship to the determination of the outcome of wagers recognizable from common experience. We hold that the Legislature’s addition to the general language prohibits the possession of other implements of the same character and class as those gambling devices specifically mentioned.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.