Bargesser v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Bell v. State (1959), Goodwin v. State (1946)
4 federal appellate · 24 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 Commonwealth v. Haskins · Tobin v. People · Adams v. State · O'Neal v. State · Jenkins v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since the defendant, under the evidence in this case, could not in law be guilty of both of these offenses, of which one did the jury find him guilty ? The proof renders this uncertain. Under the circumstances, the verdict does not aid the matter, nor can the verdict be construed, under the usual rules, with reference to the pleadings and proof so as to clarify the situation. Since the verdict is one which the law does not authorize, the judgment entered thereon must be, and is hereby, reversed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Although a count charging each of these offenses against the same person and with respect to the same property may properly be included in one information, a verdict which in effect finds the defendant guilty both as a principal in the larceny and as a receiver of the same goods which he himself has stolen is inconsistent, and no judgment can be rendered upon it, although the evidence might sustain a conviction under either count.” (Emphasis supplied) .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a confederate of the actual thief who was present aiding and abetting in the larceny and who received the stolen property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McWhirter v. State
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.