State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1908
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1937
4 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. Jarvis · State v. Nease · State v. Painter · State v. Hoffman · State v. Vowels
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sufficiency of the indictment is also- questioned by the defendants, in that it does not charge the crime for which they were tried. In the statute of 1864 the name of this crime-is given in the index to the sections at the beginning of chapter 43, of which it is a part, and also on the margin opposite section 527, its original number, as 'assault, being armed with a cowhide,’ and was so- adopted by the legislature, and the name-of the crime thus became part of the law (State v. Vowels, 4 Or. 324 ; State v. Nease, 46 Or. 433 , 80 Pac. 897 ), and 'assault, being armed with a strap,’ does not name the crime defined by this section. However, an error in the name of the crime in the preliminary part of the information is not fatal, if the charging part is sufficiently specific. State v. Sweet, 2 Or. 127 ; State v. Jarvis, 18 Or. 360 , 23 Pac. 251 . But the-charge is, 'did assault, strike, hit, and beat one Exilda Mitchell * * * with said leather strap.’ The- allegation contains nothing to-bring the strap within the class of instruments mentioned under 'cowhide, whip, stick, or like thing.’ In Alabama, under a-similar statute [B-ev. Code 1867, § 3672], providing that an assault with a cowhide, stick, or whip, having in his possession”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Spigener
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.