State v. Chitwood

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• gambler could not be accomplice to one who operates the gambling house

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Kelly
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1954-03-19· cited 56×
• State v. Barragan-Sierra
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2008-07-17· cited 23×
• State v. Lovell
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1965-03-03· cited 21×
• State v. Martin
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1952-06-16· cited 12×
• Chitwood v. Eyman
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1952-10-07· cited 2×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hoffman v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1951-05-28· cited 1,874×
• United States v. Monia
  Supreme Court· 1943-02-08· cited 413×
• Heike v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1913-01-27· cited 308×
• Blau v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1950-12-11· cited 233×
• Ex parte Morgan
  W.D. Arkansas· 1883-10-15· cited 46×
• In Re Critchlow
  California Supreme Court· 1938-08-09· cited 17×
• State v. Chitwood
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1952-02-25· cited 13×
• People v. Anhut
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1914-05-28· cited 6×