State v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ The second point is equally clear. Section 1902 is valid, and not obnoxious to any objections on the score'of being unconstitutional. It is not a special law, because it applies to all cities having a population of over one hundred’ thousand inhabitants; applies as well to the future as to the present, and in this is plainly distinguishable from the ‘notary act’ discussed in State ex rel. Harris v. Hermann, 73 Mo. 340 . Nor does the section in question impinge upon the constitutional rights of the defendant by reason of giving the State the right, in certain localities, of peremptorily challenging a larger number of persons than it possesses in other localities. Such power, on the part oí the State, does not, under the very terms of the section, diminish a defendant’s right to the same number of challenges which he possesses alike in cities or in the country. If the section under discussion had deprived a defendant, when tried in a certain locality, of the usual number of peremptory challenges, a different question might have been presented, one not necessary to be now considered. This subject of the right of the State and of defendant to peremptory challenges, is fully discussed by a learned author and the cases which he cites. [Bishop on Crim. Proc., sec. 940, and cases cited.] The views here expressed are in accord’ with those authorities.” [State v. Hayes, 88 Mo. l. c. 347, affirmed in Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 608 .] See also Ex parte Loving, 178 Mo. l. c. 213; St”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Eaton and Norman

2. ““This motion was denied, and properly denied. Section 1881, Revised Statutes 1879, fully authorized the making of the order which the defendant sought to have set aside. Judge Burton, by that order, being clothed with jurisdiction, retains that jurisdiction until the final determination of the cause. This is what the statute says in express terms, and so it was ruled when this cause was here before. [State v. Hayes, supra.] It follows, from these premises, that the withdrawal-of the defendant’s application for a change of venue did not divest Judge Burton of the jurisdiction with which he became invested in consequence of the order in that behalf previously made. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perkins