Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 KAN 141 - Rice v. State

Rice v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1865

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
5
states following
May 1987
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1987

14 state decisions

401865187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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.

  1. ““First: That at the place mentioned by the witness a gambling device or instrument was in existence. Second: That that gambling device was what is generally known as a faro bank. Third: That the defendant was the keeper of that faro bank. To establish the fact of one being the keeper of a faro bank, it is sufficient to show that he appeared thus acting as the one having control, in charge, superintending the same. It is not necessary to show that he was actually the owner. Fourth: That the defendant being the-keeper, kept such gambling device for the purpose of gain. Fifth: That defendant, being the keeper and keeping the said device for purposes of gain, induced or permitted other persons to bet and play upon such gambling device either on his side or against him.” (p. 158.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If other devices than those named are set up, they must be charged to be 'adapted, devised,’ etc.; i. e., they must be described so as to show them to be ‘gambling tables or devices.’ ””
    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.