State v. Shedoudy’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Herring v. New York (1975), State v. Hart (1967)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 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 State v. Hefflin · 10 E.H. Smith 253 - People v. . Fitzgerald · Smith v. State · Phelps v. . People · State v. Rogers
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Generally speaking, when an act is prohibited and made punishable by statute only, the statute is to be construed in the light of the common law and the existence of a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, although the terms of the statute do not require it. * * *" State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516 , 118 P.2d 280, 285 (1941).”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Austin · State v. Craig““ * * * It is the general rule that where a crime is created by statute, defining the offense created, it is sufficient in an indictment or information, to charge the offense in the language of the statute. * * * But where the letter of the statute is broader than the intent of the legislature, the information must be so drawn as to effect the legislative intent. * * * criminal intent, if an essential element of an offense, may be charged in general terms * * * or by the use of equivalent words.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ferguson““If appellant was not entitled to possession of the car at the time he took it from the garage, then he was not guilty of the crime charged, the very foundation of which was the alleged fact that he held possession by virtue of a conditional sales ■contract at the time he committed the acts charged in the information, if he did commit them(Emphasis ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shedoudy
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.