State v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 2002
3 federal appellate · 20 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 Reeves v. State · State v. Kortgaard
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“.. “Every person who, with intent to deprive or defraud the owner thereof— . . . “(3) Having any property in liis possession, custody or control, as bailee, factor, pledgee, servant, attorney, agent, employee, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian or officer of any person, estate, association or corporation, . . . shall secrete, withhold or appropriate the same to his own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto, . . . “Steals such property and shall be guilty of larceny. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Nicely“[H]ad the instruction as worded been given, it would have, in effect, advised the jury that an intention on his part to repay or make restitution would wipe out the crime or purge the appellant of the offense. Such is not the law. The intention to return the money embezzled, or even the actual restitution, does not absolve the guilty party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The mere fact that the transaction may take the form of a loan would not necessarily deprive it of its criminality.”
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.