31 Ala. App. 121 - Lash v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

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

1. ““Several questions have been considered by the state and federal courts, to the effect that the phrase, ‘without a just cause or legal excuse for so doing,’ as employed by the statute before us and as employed in the affidavit in the case of Lash v. State, 14 So.2d 235 ,1 in the Court of Appeals, is not without meaning legally, inherently and historically and means an unlawful act or purpose or without legal excuse. More-land Theatres Corp. v. Portland Moving Picture Machine Operators’ Protective Union, etc., and Granada Theatre Corp. v. Portland Moving Picture Machine Operators’ Protective Union, 140 Or. 35 , 12 P.2d 333 ; Schwind v. Gibson et al., 220 Iowa 377 , 260 N.W. 853 ; Swan v. Dailey-Luce Auto Co. et al., 221 Iowa 842 , 265 N.W. 143, 148 ; State v. Caldwell, Mo.Sup., 231 S.W. 613 ; State ex rel. Nelson v. Henry, 221 Wis. 127 , 266 N.W. 227 ; In re Municipal Garage in and for City of Utica, 141 Misc. 15 , 252 N.Y.S. 18 ; People v. Wallach, 62 Cal.App. 385 , 217 P. 81 ; State v. Wholfort, 123 Kan. 62 , 254 P. 317 ; State v. Williams, 166 S.C. 63 , 164 S.E. 415 ; Gentry v. Gentry, 161 Va. 786 , 172 S.E. 157 ; State v. Donzi, 133 La. 925 , 63 So. 405 ; State v. Baker, 112 La. 801 , 36 So. 703 . “To a right decision of the question before us, it will be noted that, this expression used in the complaint or affidavit in this cause and appearing in the statute means ‘unlawfully.’ Bankers’ Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss et al., 229 Ala. 26 , 155 So. 371 ; and the authoritie”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 31 Ala. App. 133 - Threet v. State

2. ““Any person or persons who, without a just cause or legal excuse therefor, go near to or loiter about the premises or place of business of any other person, firm, corporation, or association of people, engaged in a lawful business, for the purpose, or with the intent of influencing, or inducing other persons not to trade with, buy from, sell to, have business dealings with, or be employed by such persons, firm, corporation, or association, or who picket the works or place of business of such other persons, firms, corporations, or associations of persons, for the purposes of hindering, delaying, or interfering with, or injuring any lawful business or enterprise of another, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; but nothing herein shall prevent any person from soliciting trade or business for a competitive business.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kelly v. State

3. ““ * * * and when an act has been committed by one conspirator in furtherance of that common design that is unlawful, all of the conspirators will be subject to trial for the conspiracy to commit the act or for the act itself as committed pursuant to that conspiracy. (Italics ours.) * * * “The foregoing authorities likewise establish the proposition that such unlawful community of purpose entered into as a conspiracy need not be proven by positive testimony. It is rarely so to be shown. It must be determined by the triers of fact from the conduct of the parties and all the relative testimony.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Black v. State