State v. Oswald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is true, as contended, that dice and the throwing thereof in gaming is not specifically mentioned in the statute as a gambling device; but it is manifest from the language employed that the legislature intended to prohibit the use of all gambling devices and gaming by which money or property is lost or won. It appears that the defendants furnished the dice, chips and other facilities for gaming, and witnesses state that the defendants ‘banked the game.’ There is testimony that they sold chips, and that when the players lost they lost to the defendants, and that when they won they won from the defendants. The witnesses stated that they played against the defendants; and the testimony shows that considerable money was won and lost on the games of ‘craps’ which were set up and managed by the defendants. We think there is abundant testimony to sustain the convictions.” (p. 511.)”

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

2. ““While dice may be used for purposes other than gambling, they are adapted, and have always been largely used, for gaming or for determining by chance. The mere ownership and possession of a device practically adapted to gaming does not constitute an offense under the statute, but the setting up or keeping of such a gambling device is the element of criminality. . . . We think the correct view of the offense charged in the first count was taken by the trial court. It instructed the jury that it was essential to show ‘that the defendants set up or kept a gambling device composed of dice and the throwing thereof, and that such gambling device was adapted, devised and designed for the purpose of playing a game of chance for money or property, and that it was so used.’ ” (p. 510.)”

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

3. ““The setting up and keeping of a gambling device and enticing and permitting persons to gamble therewith, when charged to have been perpetrated by the same persons at the same time, constitute a single offense, for which but one penalty can be inflicted.” (Syl. ¶ 3.)”

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