24 Kan. App. 2d 734 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “ ‘The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions follow generally the so-called “single larceny doctrine”; that is, that the taking of property belonging to different owners at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny. Various rationales have been propounded in support of this position, perhaps the most common one being that such taking is one offense because the act of taking is one continuous act or transaction, and since the gist of the offense is the felonious taking of property, the legal quality of the act is not affected by the fact that the property stolen belonged to different persons.’ ” ’ 24 Kan. App. 2d at 738 .” Hood, 44 Kan. App. 2d at 152 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hood · 44 Kan. App. 2d 145 - State v. Hood

2. ““ Tf we were to adopt the single larceny doctrine, it seems to us the test to be applied to determine if there are separate offenses or only a single offense should be based on whether the evidence discloses one general intent to steal or distinct and separate intents. Each case necessarily would have to be decided on its own facts, and a defendant could be convicted of separate thefts only if the evidence showed the offenses to be separate and distinct and not committed pursuant to one intention, one impulse, or one plan.’ ” 24 Kan. App. 2d at 738 (quoting Stoops, 4 Kan. App. 2d at 139-40 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Kan. App. 2d 145 - State v. Hood