Warren v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where there is at most but a naked possession or control — that is, a bare charge — or where the access consists of a mere physical propinquity as an incident of the employment, the felonious appropriation should be regarded as larceny. The reference in the embezzlement statute to officers, agents, attorneys, clerks, servants and employes is plainly indicative of the intent to limit the denouncement of the statute to cases in , which such persons have, as an element of their employment, a special trust concerning the money, article, or thing of value that involves an actual possession thereof or a special night of access to or control over the same. This requirement would not be satisfied, as we may indicate by way of illustration, by the mere control, possession, or physical opportunity of access, which a watchman'in charge of a store might have. As before indicated, the relationship contemplated by the statute is one of special trust and confidence; a relationship in which there inheres, either for the particular transaction or for all purposes, a special right of access to, control, or possession of, the money, article, or thing of value which is appropriated.” (emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Liese v. State

2. ““. . . Here there was no ‘relation of special trust in regard to the article appropriated’ which this court in Colip v. State, supra, said was necessary to an embezzlement. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leonard v. State