Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 N.C. 661 - State v. Block

State v. Block’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably State v. Carson (1978), State v. Walker (1960)

32 state decisions

80195719601970198019902000decided

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 State v. . Gentry · State v. Blackley. · State v. . Hill · State v. . Gulledge · State v. . Eubanks

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

  1. “four distinct propositions of fact must be established: (1) that the defendant was the agent of the prosecutor, and (2) by the terms of his employment had received property of his principal; (3) that he received it in the course of his employment; and (4) knowing it was not his own, converted it to his own use.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If . . . any agent, consignee, clerk, bailee or servant, . . . shall embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply or convert to his own use, or shall take, make away with or secrete, with intent to embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply or convert to his own use any . . . goods . . . which shall have come into his possession or under his care, he shall be [guilty of a felony]. . . .”
    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.