People v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 1975 · most notably Wolin v. Port of New York Authority (1968), State v. Zito (1969)
8 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
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 The Parker Mills v. . the Commissioners of Taxes · Matter of Stubbe v. . Adamson · People v. . Richards · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Durkin · Matter of Devoy v. . Craig
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * We do not agree with the contention of the District Attorney that this clause means that any person found on the premises is required to give an explanation which satisfies any individual police officer by whom he is accosted. If that were true, the statute would furnish no standard of conduct which could be known in advance, and it would be void for uncertainty. * * * The questionable words * * * merely outline a procedure to be followed in ascertaining whether the person to be charged is loitering about the station or platform. These words do not broaden but restrict the offense. They prevent a defendant from being convicted unless, in addition to other proof that lie has been loitering, it appears that he has failed to give an explanation indicating that he is an implied invitee or licensee, after having been questioned on the scene concerning the reason for his presence. An explanation that is ‘satisfactory’ means merely one which shows that the person has come there for some purpose which would not render him a trespasser. These words in subdivision 2 which are offensive to defendants neither furnish a basis for conviction standing by themselves, nor do they add any substantive element of the offense. They merely prevent anyone from being convicted of loitering about a station or platform unless, at the time, he was given opportunity to explain his presence by showing that he was not. loitering. This is not a substantive factor in what constitutes the offense, but”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Zito
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.