Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 295 N.Y. 26 - People v. Levan

People v. Levan’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
7
states following
January 1982
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 1982 · most notably United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co. (1946), State v. Orecchio (1954)

23 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

29019451950196019701980decided

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 Berger v. United States · Viereck v. United States · New York Cent Co v. Johnson · People v. Moran · Kerrains v. . People of the State of N.Y.

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

  1. ““ * * * we find that the gist of robbery is larceny by force from the person (Penal Law, §§ 2120, 2122), and that the gist of larceny is the taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the specific intent to steal such property (Penal Law, § 1290). If on an indictment for larceny or robbery the testimony leaves uncertain the intent with which the accused took the property, the jury should be instructed to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt * * * That the intent is usually to be inferred from the act does not change the rule that a taking without intent to steal is not larceny at common law. * * * “Robbery, as thus defined, is ‘a particular species * * * of crime’ of which ‘the actual existence of any particular * * * intent is a necessary element’ within the meaning of Penal Law, § 1220.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.