State v. Rackle’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably In Re Wallace W. (1993), State v. Smith (1978)
39 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Haili v. United States · 115 W. Va. 4 - Village of Barboursville Ex Rel. Bates v. Taylor · Coray v. Ariyoshi · 6 Ill. App. 3d 616 - People v. Collins · Beeler v. State
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any person not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle used or occupied by him, or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined not more than $250, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kawazoye · State v. Ogata“... we explained that what the statute proscribed was the act of carrying any of the weapons enumerated, and those closely akin to those named, as well as instruments associated with criminal activity whose sole design is to inflict death or bodily injury. The fact that an object originally designed for normal or lawful use can be perverted, to a use dangerous to one attacked does not convert it into a “deadly or dangerous weapon” within the meaning of the statute. The instrument proscribed is one which was designed primarily as a weapon, or one which has been modifiedfor combat purposes. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Muliufi““Where words of general description follow the enumeration of certain things, those words are restricted in their meaning to objects of like kind and character with those specified .... This is the rule of ejusdem generis often utilized by the courts in the construction of statutory law. This doctrine is especially applicable to penal statutes which must be strictly construed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kahalewai
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.