Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 MONT 116 - State v. Pippi

State v. Pippi’s Empirical Analysis

1921

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
6
states following
June 1982
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1982 · most notably Civic Ass'n of Wyoming v. Railway Motor Fuels, Inc. (1941), State v. Hopkins (1923)

2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

1101921193019401950196019701980decided

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. McKinney · Evers v. Hudson · State v. Schnepel · State v. Landry · State v. Kanakaris

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

  1. ““It is the general rule' that upon the trial of one accused of crime, evidence of a distinct and independent offense is not admissible; but the rule is equally well settled that the State may introduce evidence tending to prove a uniform plan or course of action on the part of the accused for the purpose of identification, of disclosing guilty knowledge or criminal intent, and to negative the idea that the particular act charged was merely the result of inadvertence or mistake; and, if such evidence also tends to establish the commission of another offense, it is not for that reason inadmissible.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The crime for which the defendant was tried is purely statutory. The information follows the language of the statute, contains all that is essential to constitute the crime, is sufficient to apprise the accused of the nature of the offense charged, and is not open to the objection that the amount which defendant received from the prosecuting witness is not stated. The statute does not require that it shall be.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.