State v. Tinker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he rationale for [ Campbell and Delcambre ] was that the welfare fraud statute implicitly incorporates the degree structure of the theft statutes, and therefore value is required in order to prove the degree .... [M]erely charging welfare fraud fails to apprise the defendant of the degree of theft incorporated into the charge, just as failing to include value when charging multiple degrees of theft fails to apprise the defendant of which conduct violated which theft statute.... Campbell and its precursor Delcambre provide no guidance on whether value is an essential element of third degree theft. [ [45] ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gonzalez-Lopez

2. “We are not inclined to depart from the holding we reached in that case and affirm Leyda's third degree theft convictions. ¶ 12 Turning to the challenges made to the identity theft charges, we hold that value is not an essential element of second degree identity theft and need not be alleged in the charging document. An”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Leyda

3. “the language of the charging document is strictly construed to determine whether all elements are included, and the defendant need not show he was prejudiced by the defect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Recuenco