State v. Countdown, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Nor is there any merit to the State’s contention that Countdown’s operation constitutes betting at an off-track site prohibited by R.S. 4:149 and 171. Countdown did not bet or wager. It accepted money, carried to the track, placed the bet at pari-mutuel windows and retened the betting ticket to its office, to be retrieved by the bettor. It takes two to wager, and until Countdown reached the track with the bettor s money and bought the ticket at the parimutuel window, no bet was made.” Countdown, at 927.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 Ill. App. 3d 419 - Finish Line Express, Inc. v. City of Chicago · Thomas v. Commonwealth