Blakeney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently November 1989 · most notably 46 Ala. App. 722 - Parks v. State (1971), INTERNATIONAL UNION, ETC. v. Russell (1956)
62 state decisions
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 Pollack v. Gunter & Gunter · Phelps v. State · Molton v. State · Beckham v. State · Pharr v. Bachelor
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Hence it is not a taking for one merely to compel another by threats to lay a thing down, or to strike the hand of another and knock money from it, or to jostle him, or tear his clothes, or break his belt, so that his watch or purse is dislodged from his person and falls to the floor or ground, if the prospective thief desists or is prevented from seizing the thing thus laid down or dropped; nor is the act of thrusting one’s hand into the pocket of another and merely touching his money or purse, or of unscrewing a shirt stud in the bosom of his shirt, a taking, if the would-be thief does not grasp the money or purse, or does not entirely unscrew the stud, or if he drops the stud in the act of unscrewing it.” (Citation omitted) “For like reason if the possession of the would-be taker is imperfect in any degree, or if his control of the thing desired is qualified by any circumstance, however slight, the taking is incomplete and the act is only an attempt. Thus if goods, displayed on the counter of a shop or in front of it, are attached to the building by a cord, however slender, which the would-be taker does not sever, there is no taking, although the article itself is wholly in his grasp when he is detected and stopped. So the lifting of a watch from a man’s pocket does not constitute a taking, unless the chain by which it is attached to his person is disconnected or broken.” (Citation omitted). (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Scott v. State““To constitute larceny there must be a severance of the possession of the owner and an actual possession by the wrongdoer. The severance of the possession of the owner, and the actual possession of the wrongdoer, may be but for a moment ; the length of time they continue is not important; * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cherry v. State
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.