State v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 935 - People v. Tufunga (1999), State v. Long (1984)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 124 N.J. Super. 189 - State v. Ortiz · State v. Harris · State v. PIERCE · Guffey v. Continental Casualty Co. · State v. Goldsberry
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a subsidiary contention defendant claims that the evidence here tended to show robbery rather than theft, which he says is a separate and distinct crime. This state has long recognized that robbery and theft (formerly termed larceny) are kindred crimes. In State v. Segermond, 40 Kan. 107, 108 , 19 Pac. 370 , the court accepted the definition of robbery as being ‘larceny committed by violence of the person of one put in fear.’ In Guffey v. Casualty Co., 109 Kan. 61 , 197 Pac. 1098 , Syl. ¶ 2, the court held that ‘Robbery includes larceny and may be deemed forcible larceny, and in order to constitute it there must be an intent to deprive the owner of the property taken, not temporarily but permanently.’ The principle that the crime of theft is necessarily included in a robbery was recognized by implication in the recent case of State v. Harris, 215 Kan. 961 , 529 P.2d 101 . There we held that in a robbery prosecution an instruction on theft (‘unauthorized control over property as proscribed in K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-3701[a]’) was not necessary, but only because the evidence at the trial excluded guilt of the lesser offense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In our view, the proposition not only is lacking in sound reason and logic, but it is utterly incompatible with and has no place in an ordered and orderly society such as ours, which eschews self-help through violence. Adoption of the proposition would be but one step short of accepting lawless reprisal as an appropriate means of redressing grievances, real or fancied. We reject it out of hand.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.