Delorme v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Burrell v. State (1975), Ex Parte Giles (1973)
1 federal appellate · 33 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 Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Winters v. People of State of New York · United States v. Petrillo · Street v. New York · Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange Cty.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any person who shall within this State, publicly or privately, mutilate, deface, defile, defy, tramp upon, or cast contempt upon, either by word or act any flag, standard, color, or ensign of the United States, or that of any of its officers, or on any imitation of either of them, shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than twenty-five years.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. Wade · Van Slyke v. State““It is the duty of the court, if it can be done, to construe a statute so that it will remain valid. Where a statute contains words or provisions which are valid and others which are not, effect should be given to the valid words and provisions by separating them from the invalid ones. Ohio Oil Company v. Giles, 149 Tex. 532 , 235 S.W.2d 630 (1950); Zwernemann v. Von Rosenburg, 76 Tex. 522 , 13 S.W. 485 (1890); and Ex parte Towles, 48 Tex. 413 . If the unconstitutional or void portion of any statute be stricken out and that which remains is complete in itself and capable of being executed in accord with the apparent legislative intent, wholly independent of that portion which is rejected, the statute must be sustained. Salas v. State, 365 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App. 1963). This is true, even though the statutory enactment contains no severa-bility clause. Salas v. State, supra, and Gilderbloom v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 471 , 272 S.W.2d 106 (1954).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hixon v. State
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.