2 Mass. App. Ct. 1 - Commonwealth v. Obshatkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . while there was no direct testimony in the instant case that the defendant actually received the stolen property within the Commonwealth, the jury could have found from the evidence that the defendant lived in Taunton, that the goods were stolen in Taunton, and that the defendant possessed the goods in nearby Warwick shortly thereafter. From those circumstances the jury were warranted in inferring that the receipt did take place in Massachusetts. While it is true that ‘possession out of the commonwealth of goods stolen in the commonwealth would not of itself warrant a conviction for receiving them . . . here’ (Commonwealth v. Phelps, 192 Mass. 591, 593-594 , 78 N.E. 741, 742 [1906]; emphasis supplied), we think that there was sufficient additional evidence presented here to warrant the defendant’s conviction.” 307 N.E.2d at 343 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 31 Md. App. 205 - Thornton v. State