Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 ARIZ 348 - State v. Leeman

State v. Leeman’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1978
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Turner v. United States · Casey v. United States · 7 Ariz. App. 307 - State v. Scofield · State v. Haremza · State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA

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

  1. ““A. A person is guilty of theft by embezzlement who: ****** “4. Has leased or rented personal property, and who fraudulently fails to return such personal property, to the lessor within ten days after the lessor has made written demand by certified or registered mail following the expiration of the lease or rental agreement for return of the property so leased or rented. “B. It shall be prima facie evidence of intent to commit theft by embezzlement of leased or rented personal property when one who has leased or rented the personal property of another fails to return or make arrangements acceptable with the lessor to return the personal property to its owner within ten days after proper notice following the expiration of the lease or rental agreement, or presents identification to the lessor or renter thereof which is false, fictitious or not current with respect to name, address, place of employment or other appropriate items. “C. Proper notice by the lessor on a charge of theft by embezzlement of leased or rental property shall consist of a written demand addressed and mailed by certified or registered mail to the lessee at the address given at the time of making the lease or rental agreement. “D. The following factors taken as a whole shall constitute an affirmative defense to prosecution for theft by embezzlement of rented or leased personal property: “1. That the lessee accurately stated his name and address at the time of rental. “2. That the lessee’s failure to return ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.