State v. Vanella’s Empirical Analysis
1910
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1997 · most notably Diaz v. United States (1912), State v. McGee (1935)
3 federal appellate · 41 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Lewis v. United States · Deal v. State · State v. Hopkirk · State v. Baldwin · People v. Rolfe
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * It is not necessary for the state to prove motive. -The presence or absence of it is not conclusive, however, but is to be considered as any other evidentiary fact bearing upon the ultimate question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and is more or less significant in the light of the facts of the particular ease. The finding of a motive is not indispensable, however. Were this true, it would oftentimes be impossible to secure conviction; for such is the nature of the human heart, and so various are the springs of action hidden therein, that it is- often impossible to fathom it and assign any motive whatever to the act under consideration. Under such circumstances it is the duty of the jury to convict, notwithstanding the lack of proof tending to show motive, if the crime is otherwise clearly established’. State v. Lucey, 24 Mont. 295 , 61 Pac. 904 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Alexander“He [the defendant] is entitled to meet the witnesses against him face to face, if he insists upon it. In other words, these are rights which he may invoke. They are for his benefit, and, if he insists upon them, they cannot be denied him (State v. Lee, 13 Mont. 248 , 33 P. 690 ) * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Storm“meet the witnesses against him face to face”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Storm
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.