Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 Mont. 404 - State v. Keays

State v. Keays’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
February 1983
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 1983

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

70193419401950196019701980decided

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 14 Cal. App. 576 - People v. Ruef · Wertheimer & Goldberg v. State · State v. Hopkins · State v. Shannon · State v. Huffman

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

  1. ““Receiver of stolen property. Every person who for his own gain or to prevent the owner from again possessing his own property buys or receives any personal property, knowing the same to have been stolen, is punishable- by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five (5) years or in a county jail not exceeding six (6) months; and it is presumptive evidence that such property was stolen if the same consists of jewelry, silver or plated ware or articles of personal ornaments, brass, bronze or copper fixtures, fittings or parts of machinery, or electrical supplies, or what is commonly termed junk, if purchased or received from a person under the age of twenty-one (21) years unless said property is sold by said minor at a fixed place of business carried on by said minor or his employer.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A person, firm or corporation in whose name a mark or brand is recorded is entitled to the exclusive use of the mark or brand on the species of animal and in the position designated in the record. A copy of the record certified by the department is prima facie evidence of this right, and the certificate is also prima facie evidence that the person, firm or corporation entitled to use the mark or brand is the owner of all animals on which it appears in the position and on the species of animal stated in the certificate. (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.