State v. Cushing’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1963), Sharma v. State (2002)
4 federal appellate · 30 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 Workman v. State · State v. Jones · Wagner v. State · People v. Smith · People v. Mangiapane
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The third instruction was properly rejected because, under the statute of this state, it is not essential to the conviction of accessories before the fact that the prosecution first prove the guilt of the principal. It was only necessary to show that a larceny had been committed, and that the defendants, if they were present, aided and assisted, or if not present, that they advised or encouraged it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. LaPena v. State · Hanley v. State““The holding of our supreme court to that effect is recognized in 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, sec. 105, p. 179, wherein it is said in note 59 to the text: ‘In Nevada, under such a statute as is contemplated by the text [statutes which abolish the distinction between principals and accessories], while the prosecution must show that a felony has been committed and that the accused instigated its commission, still it has been held not necessary to prove by whom the felony was committed.’ , While the state might not, in a given case, be able to prove the identity of the principal offender, that fact should not become a shield to all who may have been concerned as accessories before the fact. As stated in People v. Mangiapane, 219 Mich. 62 , 188 N.W. 401 , 402: ‘The effect of our statute is to permit the prosecution of one who aids and abets, without regard to the conviction or acquittal of one who, under the common law, would have been called the principal. That is what the statute intended to accomplish in abrogating the common-law rule.’ See People v. Smith, 271 Mich. 553 , 260 N.W. 911 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hanley v. State“Who are principals. Every person concerned in the commission of a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense, or aids or abets in its commission, and whether present or absent ; and every person who, directly or indirectly, counsels, encourages, hires, commands, induces or otherwise procures another to commit a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor is a principal, and shall be proceeded against and punished as such... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LaPena 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.