State v. Jacquith’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2016
10 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 70 Wis. 2d 508 - In Re Hon. Charles E. Kading · Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc. · Kowalchuk v. United States · State v. Jones · State v. Aschmeller
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that when a statute delineates a specific dollar amount as the differentiation between petit and grand larceny, proof of.the value of the item(s) stolen in excess of the statutory amount is an essential element of the crime[.] .... It is also well settled that the determination of said value is strictly within the province of the jury.... To aid the jury in’ determining value, the courts have offered various tests for the determination of value as used in statutes distinguishing between petit and grand larceny and other similar statutes involving theft of property. The most widely accepted test is the “fair market value” test. This test provides that the value to be proved is the fair market value at the time and place of the theft.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Downing“When the value of property alleged to have been taken by theft must be determined, the reasonable and fair market value at the time and in the locality of the theft shall be the test. Fair market value is the highest price, estimated in terms of money, for which the property would have sold in the open market at the time and in that locality, if the owner was desirous of selling, but under no urgent necessity of doing so, if the buyer was desirous of buying but under no urgent necessity of doing so, if the seller had a reasonable time within which to find a purchaser, and if the buyer had knowledge of the character of the property and of the use to which it might be put.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Downing“[ejvery practicing attorney knows that where a prejudicial and improper question ... is asked for the sole purpose of conveying to the jury information that counsel knows or should have known is excludable by the rules of evidence it is pure fiction to suppose that the damage done is eradicable by objection and/or cautionary instructions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kidd
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.