Hardy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1615 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on United States v. Ursery · Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co. · Robinson v. Hanrahan · Croucher v. Croucher · Ortiz v. Jones
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any electronic, electromechanical, or mechanical contrivance designed, made, and adapted solely for bona fide amusement purposes if the contrivance rewards the player exclusively with noncash merchandise prizes, toys, or novelties, or a representation of value redeemable for those items, that have a wholesale value available from a single play of the game or device of not more than 10 times the amount charged to play the game or device once or $5, whichever is less.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any electronic, electromechanical, or mechanical contrivance not excluded under Paragraph (B) that for a consideration affords the player an opportunity to obtain anything of value, the award of which is determined solely or partially by chance, even though accompanied by some skill, whether or not the prize is automatically paid by the contrivance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardy 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.