Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 Idaho 396 - State v. Andreason

State v. Andreason’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

201927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 55 Cal. App. 103 - People v. Norrington · Devoy v. State · 6 Cal. App. 749 - People v. Bowman · 65 Cal. App. 345 - In Re Brady · 61 Cal. App. 7 - People v. Grafft

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

  1. “A large number of authorities are cited by counsel for appellant, to the effect that the state must show in such cases that the female “showed the utmost reluctance and used the utmost resistance.” De Voy [Devoy] v. State, 99 N.W. 455 , 122 Wis. 148 [ (1904) ]. To our minds the trouble with a number of these authorities is that they reverse the order of the inquiry. They go about inquiring into the kind, character, and nature of the fight put up by the woman, rather than the nature of the assault and evident and manifest purpose and intent of the assailant. For the purpose of reaching the conclusions announced in some of these cases, it is necessary to assume that, in the first place, a man has a right to approach a woman, lay hold on her person, take indecent liberties with her, and that, unless she “kicks, bites, scratches, and screams” (People v. Morrison, 1 Parker Cr. R. [N.Y.] 625) to the “utmost of her power and ability,” she will be deemed to have consented, and indeed to have invited the familiarity. Such is neither justice, law, nor sound reason.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.