State v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis
1892
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Harmelin v. Michigan (1991), Weems v. United States (1910)
5 federal appellate · 51 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 People ex rel. Drake v. Mahaney · Pervear v. The Commonwealth · Tiernan v. Rinker · Washburn v. People · Sinclair v. Jackson ex dem. Field
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Attorney General is in the same department of service as the state’s attorney, but having a larger jurisdiction, and is in a sense a superior and supervising officer. We have no doubt but that it would be competent for the Legislature to authorize the Attorney General to appoint an assistant for himself, or an assistant or deputy state’s attorney in any county, naming the conditions under which such appointment might be made. This would not be delegating to the Attorney General the legislative power to create a new office, any more than a law authorizing a sheriff or register of deeds to appoint a deputy whenever a proper discharge of his official duties required it. It is no' objection that a statutory law authorizes the appointment of a deputy to a constitutional officer, and such a law may empower such deputy to discharge official duties in his own name.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fravin“"* * * and it is not difficult to see that the mischief which the provision was intended to prevent was that of putting into the law what was not indicated in the title, and not that of making the title broader than the law."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garrey v. Schnider“are essentially and inseparably connected in substance.”
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.