State v. MacE’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2017
17 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 Wong Tai v. United States · United States v. Hess · State v. Cox · State v. Zammar · State v. Lomax
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant does not in this court assert that the information fails to charge him with a criminal offense. It is evident that it does. Sections 560.156, 560.-161, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. (to which revision all statutory references are made unless otherwise indicated). But that fact does not dispose of the question here presented: Does the information inform defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to prepare his defense?” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Newhart““ * * * between the dates of September 1st, 1960 and December 15, 1960, Robert Mace did wilfully and feloniously steal automobile tires of a value in excess of Fifty dollars ($50.00) lawful money of these United States * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Newhart
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.