Cobb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1986
17 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 Wertheimer & Goldberg v. State · Huggins v. People · Commonwealth v. McGarvey · State v. Sakowski · State v. Missio
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.
“"It is not necessary to prove who stole the goods, nor the name of the party from whom taken; but it is necessary to prove the ownership, general or special, of some person, and the fact that they have been stolen from the true owner by some one, and have eventually been received by the defendant, knowing them to have been stolen, and with the intent on the part of the defendant to deprive the true owner thereof; and, when the ownership is laid in a certain person, it must be so proven."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State“"Finally, in the opinion in the Sakowski case, supra ( 191 Mo. 635 , 90 S.W. 435 ), it is stated that it is not essential to charge that the defendant knew the stolen property was the property of any particular person, but it is sufficient if he knew that the property was stolen from some person. This is in accordance with the statement in State v. Missio," supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State““* * * it is immaterial whether the property was received from A. or from B. so long as the receiver knew that the property was stolen from the owner, the gravamen of the crime under the statute being the fact that the receiver knew that he was receiving stolen property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. O'BRIEN v. State
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.