State v. Horacek’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But to sell the beer in any manner, directly or indirectly, would under the other facts of this case constitute an offense; and the disposition of it to members in the manner in which it was disposed of in the present case would, we think, constitute a sale. The case of The State v. Nickerson, 30 Kas. 545 , tends to support these views. (See also the following cases: Marmont v. The State, 48 Ind. 21 ; same case, 1 Am. Crim. Rep. 447; Martin v. The State, 59 Ala. 34 ; Rickart v. The People, 79 Ill. 86 ; same case, 2 Am. Crim. Rep. 385; The State v. Mercer, 32 Iowa 405 .) The beer was not distributed to or among the members in equal shares, nor was it in fact distributed to them at all except as they purchased it. Under their rules some of the members might get all the beer and the others none. Those purchasing the chips would get beer while the others would not get any. The sale of the chips was really a sale of the beer, as the chips represented the beer and nothing else.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Larkin