Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 Ala. 314 - Milam v. State

Milam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably United States v. Barlow (1972), Rowe v. State (1943)

2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

1401940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Bryant v. State · Booker v. State · People v. Lardner · McGehee v. State · Felix v. State

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

  1. ““We may remark as to the proof of larceny, under our decisions and statutes, that such offense is based on the fact that it is a civil trespass on the possession of another as to his personal property done with a felonious intent. Larceny has been defined by this court in Edmonds v. State, 70 Ala. 8, 45 Am.Rep. 67, as follows: ‘The usual definition of “larceny” is, “the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another.” 4 Black.Com. 229. It is defined in Roscoe’s Criminal Evidence, as “the wrongful taking possession of the goods of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his property in them.” — lb. 622. It is a well-settled rule, liable to some few exceptions, perhaps, that every larceny necessarily involves a trespass, and that there can be no trespass, unless there is an actual or constructive taking of possession; and this possession must be entire and absolute. — Roscoe’s Cr.Ev. 623-24; 3 Greenl.Ev. § 154. There must not only be. such a caption as to constitute possession of, or dominion over the property, for an appreciable moment of time, but also an asportation, or carrying away, which may be accomplished by any removal of the property or goods from their original status, such as would constitute a complete severance from the possession of the owner. 1 Greenl.Ev. § 154; Roscoe’s Cr.Ev. p. 625. * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““When property is stolen in one county and carried into another, the jurisdiction is in either county.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he defendant must be shown to have had control over the property for an appreciable moment of time”
    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.