State v. Eames’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 1989 · most notably Herald Publishing Co. v. Bill (1955), Commonwealth v. Wall (1936)
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 Equitable Loan & Security Co. v. Waring · State v. Danz · Yellow-Stone Kit v. State · Glover v. Malloska · Maughs v. Porter
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This statute [PL 384:1] reads as follows: ‘No person shall make or put up a lottery, or pretended lottery, or shall dispose of, or offer or pretend to dispose of, any money or property, real or personal, by lottery, or in any such way that a hope or expectation of gain by luck or chance is made an inducement to pay for such property, or for any share or chance therein.’ The latter half of this section, beginning ‘or in any such way ...’ etc., is clearly a partial definition of the word ‘lottery’ which appears just before it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Powell“* * * Although signing one's name in a book or appearing at the theater within five minutes of the time of the drawing might be regarded as consideration, it cannot be called `pay' without warping that word out of all recognition. For the purpose of creating a lottery, consideration must be something of value. * * * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`* * * The test by which to determine the answer to this question is not to inquire into the theoretical possibilities of the scheme, but to examine it in actual practical operation. If, as the state contends * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.