State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1993
22 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 United States v. Gainey · Killian v. United States · Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry · State v. Moore · State v. Prince
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 22 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. * * * 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. * * * * *- * “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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jordan““Illegal possession of mercury consists of possessing more than one [1] pound of mercury without also possessing a bona fide bill of sale or other instrument in writing relating to the mercury in possession stating the name and address of the seller, the name and address of the purchaser, the date of the sale, the amount sold, and the price paid therefor; * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cranford““ * * * Proof of this negative may be by the unexplained absence of a bill of sale or instrument in writing from which it may be (but not required to be) inferred that defendant did not possess such an item. Such an inference is an evidentiary matter. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cranford
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.