Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 Beeler 171 - State v. Overton

State v. Overton’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 1997

3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

8019511960197019801990decided

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 Hagner v. United States · Rosen v. United States · Cochran v. United States · State of Tenn. v. Cornellison · Wilson v. State

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

  1. ““... for any other purpose than to pay for labor performed on, or materials furnished by his order, for, this specific improvement, while any amount for which he may be or become liable for such labor or materials remains unpaid. ...””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... that a person exercising a contractual relation shall obtain funds for a specific purpose and shall divert those funds to his own use, leaving outstanding obligations for which the creditor would have a lien upon the property owned by the payor of such funds.... This very closely approaches embezzlement in that there exists the confidential relation and the person who is charged by reason of such relationship misappropriates or diverts the funds paid to him for a specific purpose and uses them for his own ends.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, “and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.””
    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.