State v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1967
11 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 Henderson v. People · State v. McGaffin · State v. Foster · State v. Bussey · State v. Bobbst
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Concubinage, as used in the section quoted, had no settled common-law meaning. (The People v. Bristol, 23 Mich. 118, 127 ; The People v. Cummons, 56 Mich. 544 , 23 N. W. 215 .) It must be understood in its ordinary or popular sense. (Gen. Stat. 1901, ¶ 7342.) According to Webster’s International Dictionary it is ‘the cohabiting of a man and woman who are not legally married; the state of being a concubine.’ And a concubine is defined to be a ‘woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife.’ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines concubinage as ‘the act or practice of cohabiting in sexual commerce, without the authority of law or a legal marriage.’ Otherwise stated, it is living together as married people do without being legally married. Anciently, concubinage was a state of marriage not sanctioned by law. “Concubinage is not the crime of which the defendant was convicted. He was accused of taking Minnie Bishop away, without the consent of her parent or guardian, for the purpose of concubinage. The gist of this offense consists in the intent or purpose of the taking away. What the defendant actually did was more important as evidence of his purpose than as showing that a state of concubinage had already been established. Sexual intercourse is not essential to the commission of this offense — it is only evidence of the character of the cohabitation. (State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 338 , 32 S. W. 1149 ; Henderson et al. v. The People, 124 Ill. 607 , 17 N. E. 68 , 7 Am. St. Rep.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dusin““Every person who shall take away any female, under the age of eighteen years, from her father, mother, guardian, or other person having legal charge of her person, without their consent, either for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage, shall upon conviction thereof be punished by confinement and hard labor for a term not exceeding five years.” (R. S. 21-428.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dusin
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.