Urciolo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The term ‘jurisdiction’ as applied to criminal courts means the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to declare the punishment for an offense in a regular course of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 9.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 241 Md. App. 233 - Shannon v. State · Pulley v. State

2. “"where the act of appropriation or conversion took place, or where the intent to embezzle was formed, or where the property was entrusted, or where the accused is under an obligation to account.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goldberg v. State · McBurney v. State

3. “Where one absent from a state commits a crime therein through an innocent agent the absentee is liable in the state in which the crime was committed to indictment, trial and conviction. 21 Am.Jur.2d § 387 (1965)____ In other words, acts performed outside a state, by intending to produce and producing detrimental effects within the state justify that state in prosecuting and convicting the person who causes the harm as if he had been present at the commission of the crime. 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 386 (1965); Annot., 42 A.L.R. 272 (1926). Typically, if a person, while in one state sets in motion a force which operates in another state, the actual presence of the offender in the other state is not necessary to make him amenable to its laws for the crime committed there, if an offense is the immediate result of his action. 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 386 (1965). This principle has been applied where one delivers counterfeit money or a forged instrument to a child of tender years or to an innocent adult, with instructions to pass and utter the same and the act is done. See Clark and Marshall, Crimes § 4.00 at 207 (7th ed.1967). See Adams v. People, supra [ 1 N.Y. 173 (1848)], where one who in Ohio addressed a letter to a person in New York and obtained money by false pretenses upon presentation in New York of the letter by an innocent agent was held guilty as a principal in New York. See also Commonwealth v. White, 123 Mass. 430 , 25 Am. Rep. 116 (1877) (larceny) and Commonwea”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Butler