State v. Piland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . We do not regard the evidence as quite that conclusive or compelling. The sole testimony of value came from Mr. Criser, who operated the vending machine. He testified there was approximately fifty dollars ($50) lost on merchandise and twenty-five dollars ($25) in nickels, but his figures as to the merchandise loss were obviously estimates. Mr. Criser’s testimony wavered between retail and wholesale value; he had not counted nor did he know how much stock remained in the machine after the theft; and he ‘guessed’ how much stock was held in storage. “The defendant contended at the trial that the jury should evaluate the testimony given by Mr. Criser, ‘as the jury may not believe all what [sic] the owner of the vending machine . . . testified.’ In view of the equivocal nature of portions of Mr. Criser’s testimony we are inclined to agree that value was in issue.” (p. 692.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Nesmith