Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 MO 61 - Jane v. State

Jane v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1831

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 1923
most recently cited

1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1923

1 district · 4 state decisions

101831184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

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

  1. ““It is clear law, and has been so adjudged by this court (State v. Hard-wick, 2 Mo. 228 ), that, if the facts be stated as to time or place with repugnancy or uncertainty, the indictment will be bad; and if two times or places have' been previously mentioned, and afterwards a part is only laid ‘then and there,’ the indictment is defective, because it is uncertain to which it refers; and it is no answer to the objection to say that ‘then and there’ will refer grammatically to the last antecedent, time and place.””
    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.