McBride v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Gaming is an agreement between two or more, to risk money on a contest of chance of any kind, where one must be loser, and the other gainer.’ A most apt definition of gambling, adopted by Anderson, in his Law Dictionary, is by Judge Thompson, in Brua’s Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 294, text 298, as follows: ‘Anything which induces men to risk their money or property without any other hope of return than to get for nothing any given amount from another, is gambling, and demoralizing to the community, no matter by what name it may be called. It is the same, whether the promise be to pay on the color of a card, or the fleetness of a horse, and the same numérals indicate how much is lost and won in either case, and the losing party has received just as much for the money parted with in the one case as in the other, viz.: nothing at all.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Creash v. State · Lamkin v. Faircloth

2. ““It is next contended that this statute makes a distinction between a principal and an agent, and that the defendant here was charged as principal, and could not be convicted when the proof showed that he kept and conducted the house as agent merely for other parties who were his principals, and that the' court erred in excluding evidence offered to show that he acted only as agent in keeping and conducting the house for other parties. There is no merit in this contention. Section 2645 of the Revised Statutes, immediately following the one under which the information is laid, provides as follows: ‘Whoever acts as servant, clerk, agent or employee of any person in the violation of the preceding section shall be punished in the manner and to the extent therein mentioned.’ The result of the two sections, taken together, is to make all parties concerned in the keeping of a gambling house principals, whether in the conduct of same the one acts as agent or clerk of another, or on his own behalf as principal. The first two sections makes the principal liable whether he conducts the establishment in person, or has it conducted for him by an agent, clerk, or servant. When conducted by an agent, clerk, or servant the second of the two quoted sections makes such agent, clerk, or servant a principal in the crime equally punishable with his employer, and it is not necessary to indict or charge him as agent, but he can be informed against as principal and convicted upon proof showing that ”

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

3. ““The purpose and intent of the section of the statute under discussion was to prohibit, not the gaming or gambling itself, but the keejñng of a house or other place for any manner of gaming or gambling. If money or other thing of value is staked or wagered therein, upon any result or event whatsoever, such house falls within the inhibition of this statute, whether the means adopted for the decision of the question as to who is the winner or loser of the amount wagered be a game prohibited by law or not. State v. Stripling (Ala.), 21 South. Rep. 409 . Such being our, construction of the statute, we think that the evidence in this case fully sustains the charge made in the information. Indeed, the evidence of the defendant himself as a witness in the ease completely makes out the case against him under the statute. In this we are supported by the following cases, exactly similar in their facts: Swigart v. State, 154 Ill. 284 , 40 N. E. Rep. 432; People v. Weithoff, 93 Mich. 631 , 53 N. W. Rep. 784 ; S. C. 51 Mich. 203 , 16 N. W. Rep. 442 .””

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