State v. Eyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[b]y employing the words `without intent to steal,' the legislature meant to clearly distinguish the crime of `joy-riding' from the greater crime of larceny and provide a specific penalty therefor. The words were not included so as to constitute an additional element for the state to prove.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cornish · In re Lakeysha P.

2. “It is next contended that the evidence indicates that the crime committed was larceny rather than “joy-riding” since the defendant did, in fact, intend to steal the automobile. Though this may well be true, defendant cannot complain of the conviction for the lesser offense. The state may elect to obtain a conviction for the lesser or included offense even though the accused is guilty of the greater offense. It is thus clear that the fact that the defendant might have been guilty of the greater crime of larceny is no defense to his conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Lakeysha P.

3. “Thus the “joy-riding” statute stands as an “included offense” of larceny, having all the elements of larceny except the intent to steal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Lakeysha P.