People v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1890
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1991
12 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 Lyons v. People · People v. Shotwell · State v. Tuller · Manly v. State · Barker v. People
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ When a statute is challenged as in conflict with the fundamental law, a clear and substantial conflict must be found to exist to justify its condemnation. * * * It is argued that under this law a prisoner must be sentenced from three to fifteen years, while under other statutes, for the larceny of property of the same value, he could only be imprisoned for one year. This is not a fair or legitimate test. Our statutes, and so probably the statutes of all the States, recognize this distinction. Under our statutes, larceny from the person, larceny from a dwelling house, or at a fire, may be punished by imprisonment for five years. The cashier or any officer or servant of a bank, who takes any of the property intrusted to his care, and thereby commits larceny, may be imprisoned for ten years. Any officer, clerk or person employed in the State treasury may, for larceny therefrom, be imprisoned for fourteen years. So, too, any person who shall, at the same term of court, be convicted of three distinct larcenies, may be imprisoned for fifteen years. In all these cases the property stolen may not exceed the value of a dollar. It has never been contended that any of the punishments imposed by these statutes were cruel or unusual.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Mire““It will be conceded that the legislature has the constitutional power to fix the minimum as well as the maximum of the punishment. It has also the exclusive jurisdiction to define ‘crime’ and prescribe the punishment. It is supposed to represent the sentiment and wishes of the people.” People v. Morris, 80 Mich. 641 ( 45 N. W. 591 , 8 L. R. A. 685). “The legislature is ordinarily the judge of the expediency of creating new crimes and prescribing penalties, whether light or severe, for prohibited acts.” Commonwealth v. Murphy, 165 Mass. 66 ( 42 N. E. 504 , 30 L. R. A. 734, 52 Am. St. Rep. 496 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Mire“'When a statute is challenged as in conflict with the fundamental law, a clear and substantial conflict must be found to exist to justify its condemnation.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Hall
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.