State v. Lawson’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2020
24 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
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Dennis v. United States · State v. Hefflin · State v. Shedoudy · Smith 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally speaking, when an act is prohibited and made punishable by statute only, the statute is to be construed in the light of the common law and the existence of a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, although the terms of the statute do not require it. State v. Blacklock, 23 N.M. 251 , 167 P. 714 ; Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 316 , 136 So. 270 ; State v. Hefflin, 338 Mo. 236 , 89 S.W.2d 938 , 103 A.L.R. 1301 ; Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C. I. Lee & Co., 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 103 . But the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal, without regard to the intent with which such act is done; but in such case it must clearly appear from the Act (from its language or clear inference) that such was the legislative intent. Masters v. United States, 42 App.D.C. 350 , Ann.Cas.1916A, 1243. “It follows that whether a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, is a matter of construction, to be determined from a consideration of the matters prohibited, and the language of the statute, in the light of the common law rule. State v. Blacklock, supra; State v. Hefflin, supra; Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C. I. Lee & Co., supra; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 30; 14 A.J., Criminal Law, Sec. 24.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Craig · State v. Hart““Possession of burglary tools consists of having in the person’s possession a device or instrumentality designed or commonly used for the commission of burglary and under circumstances evincing an intent to use the same in the commission of burglary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Everitt““ * * * under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed, in the commission of burglary or safe-cracking, or knowing that the same are intended to be so used.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Logan 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.