Smith v. Abram’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 state decisions

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

1. ““In support of his contentions, counsel for Smith cites a number of New ■ Mexico cases in which informations or indictments were held insufficient on appeal; but these cases are not controlling here, for the following reasons: “Proceedings on writ of habeas corpus are authorized for the purpose of testing the validity of commitments, in cases such as this, and are collateral attacks upon the judgments upon which the commitments are issued; they lie, therefore, only when the judgment attacked is absolutely void for the reason that the court rendering it was without jurisdiction to do so. 29 C.J. § 20, page 30; 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 16. The writ is not supervisory in character and does not perform the function of an appeal. 29 C-J- § 19, page 25; 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 17, page 457; nor is it available as a substitute for a demurrer or motion to quash the information. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 20. “An information may therefore be sufficient to support a judgment collaterally attacked in such a proceeding as this, even though it would have been held insufficient on motion to quash, motion in arrest of judgment, or on appeal. Ex parte Bunkers, 1 Cal.App. 61 , 81 P. 748 ; In re Myrtle, 2 Cal.App. 383 , 84 P. 335 ; Ex parte Avdalas, 10 Cal.App. 507 , 102 P. 674 . In Ex parte Kowalsky, 73 Cal. 120 , 14 P. 399 , it is said: “ ‘If enough appears in such defective indictment to show that an offense has been committed, of which the court has jurisdiction, the party charged cannot”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roehm v. Woodruff

2. ““It may be true that the pleader in drafting his information had before him and in mind § 41-4519 in the preparation of the charge upon which the petitioner entered a plea of guilty, but it certainly does not follow, as a matter of law, that because thereof, the petitioner must be discharged. Certainly if the information charges an offense against the laws of the state, under the provisions of § 41-4524, supra, the ineptitude of the pleader’s diction would not operate to nullify the information. “We believe the information is sufficient under the decisions of State v. Konviser, 57 N.M. 418 , 259 P.2d 785 ; State v. Shroyer, 49 N.M. 196 , 160 P.2d 444 ; and State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397 , 60 P.2d 646 , 110 A.L.R. 1 . * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown

3. “"(1) The indictment or information may charge, and is valid and sufficient if it charges, the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted in one (1) or more of the following ways: "(a) By using the name given to the offense by the common law or by a statute. * * * * * * "(2) The indictment or information may refer to a section or subsection of any statute creating the offense charged therein, and in determining the validity or sufficiency of such indictment or information regard shall be had to such reference." (Emphasis ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson