Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1995
6 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 Taylor v. State · Nelson v. State
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.
“[T]he general law seems to be in other States that if each taking of these separate checks is the result of a separate independent impulse or intent each taking is a separate crime, but “On the other hand, where it appears that successive takings are actuated by a single, continuing, criminal impulse or intent or are pursuant to the execution of a general larcenous scheme, it has been held or stated that such successive takings constitute a single larceny, regardless of the extent of the time which may have elapsed between each taking.” 136 A.L.R., 948 , 950. In this note the cases pro and con on the question are ably annotated. This annotation further very correctly says that ‘Whether a series of successive acts of taking constitutes several thefts or one single crime must be determined by the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” [Id. at] 951.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Desirey
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.