State v. Smiley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The indictment is based on section 1533, and cohabitation is not made an element of the offense therein described. The offense was completed in Johnson county when the second marriage was solemnized. State v. Fitzgerald, 75 Mo. 572 . The indictment should have been preferred by a grand jury of Johnson county, unless it can be upheld by force of the last clause of section 1536, namely, ‘Or in the county in which the offender may be apprehended.’ There can be no doubt but the allegations of the indictment are sufficient to bring the case within this clause. “This clause has nothing to do with the elements of the offense, and relates alone to the place where the indictment may be found. Now under the Constitution of 1875, the indictment for a felony must be found by a grand jury of the county where the offense was committed. It was so ruled, after mature deliberation, in Ex parte Slater, 72 Mo. 102 , and that ruling has been followed in subsequent cases. State v. McGraw, 87 Mo. 161 , and State v. Briscoe, 80 Mo. 644 . It follows that the clause of section 1536 just quoted is void, because in conflict with the Constitution of 1875, and it matters not that it might have been upheld under the Constitution of 1865. The indictment is worthless, for the Madison circuit court had no jurisdiction of the offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 Okla. Crim. 108 - Cleveland v. State