Maisel v. People’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably People v. Marques (1974), People v. Elliston (1973)
76 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 Dunn v. United States · Robles v. People · People v. Irrizari · Lauder v. State · Hopper v. People
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘In short, market value, as the term is used in section 1305, denotes not the value of the goods in the market in which the owner had purchased them or in which he could replace them, but the value in the market in which the goods were being traded, namely, the price at which they would probably have been sold in the regular course of business at the time when and place where they were stolen. And so, we note, the courts have held in a number of other jurisdictions where the market value is likewise the criterion for determining the value of stolen property.’ “Similarly in Lauder v. State, 233 Md. 142 , 195 A.2d 610 , the Court of Appeals of Maryland stated that in the case of a stolen tape recorder, the State had the burden of proving its value and the ‘test is market value, and particularly retail value.’ So, the reasoning in both the Irrizari and Lauder cases is that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, evidence of retail price is not only admissible but is perhaps the best evidence of market value.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter““In short, market value, ... denotes not the value of the goods in the market in which the owner had purchased them or in which he could replace them, but the value in the market in which the goods were being traded, namely, the price at which they would probably have been sold in the regular course of business at the time when and place where they were stolen. And so, we note, the courts have held in a number of other jurisdictions where the market value is likewise the criterion for determining the value of stolen property.” [Emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boone v. Stacy““Is evidence of retail price evidence of market value? We conclude that it is, especially where as in the instant case we are dealing with items which were being sold over the counter on a more-or-less”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter
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.