Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 LAANN 1530 - State v. Rushing

State v. Rushing’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
April 1939
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1939

5 state decisions

2018971900191019201930decided

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.

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

  1. ““We can appreciate the objection under article 29 of the Constitution [of 1879] to the inclusion of two distinct crimes in one statute.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.