State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Harvey (1972), State v. Vestal (1971)
3 federal appellate · 105 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 State v. Marshall Norman Hicks · State v. . Sawyer · State v. . Bell · State v. Lawrence · State v. Parker
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may, generally speaking, be deemed proved”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n robbery, as in larceny, the taking of the property must be with the felonious intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In robbery, as in larceny, the taking of the property must be with the felonious intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property. [Citations omitted.] Thus, if one disarms another in self-defense with no intent to steal his weapon, he is not guilty of robbery. [Citation omitted.] If he takes another’s property for the taker’s immediate and temporary use with no intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property, he is not guilty of larceny [Citations omitted.] Defendant here clearly intended to appropriate the rifle to a use inconsistent with its owner’s property rights. Assuming that defendant’s immediate purpose was to deprive Adams of a weapon so Adams could not use it against him or prevent his escape, still this is not in the least inconsistent with an intent permanently to deprive Adams of his rifle. The narrow question here is whether the circumstances under which defendant took the rifle are susceptible to the inference that he had any intent other than that of permanently depriving Adams of the weapon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Webb
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.