Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 NCAPP 584 - State v. Fish

State v. Fish’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Haney v. Alexander · State v. Wortham · 203 N.C. App. 718 - State v. Johnson · State v. Annadale · 76 N.C. App. 660 - State v. Massey

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

  1. “It is not necessary that a witness be an expert in order to give his opinion as to value. A witness who has knowledge of value gained from experience, information and observation may give his opinion of the value of specific real property, personal property, or services.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The State is not required to produce direct evidence of value to support the conclusion that the stolen property was worth over $ 1,000.00, provided that the jury is not left to speculate as to the value of the item.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “means fair market value. Stolen property's fair market value is the item's reasonable selling price at the time and place of the theft, and in the condition in which it was when stolen.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.