Clatos v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 1979 · most notably Combs v. Commonwealth (1960), Minor v. Commonwealth (1971)
28 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 Abshire v. Commonwealth · Newton v. Commonwealth · Rogers v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Johnson · Conley v. Commonwealth
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The degree of the offense of knowingly receiving stolen goods, denounced by this section of the statute, is determined by the value of what is received and, therefore, to constitute the offense of knowingly receiving stolen property a grand larceny or felony, the value of the stolen goods knowingly received by the accused must have been of the value of $20 or more, in that the statute provides that the receiver of the stolen goods with guilty knowledge shall be liable for the same punishment to which the person stealing the same is, by law, subjected. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 181 Ky. 643 , 205 S.W. 689 . From this it follows that the degree of the offense of knowingly receiving stolen goods, is determined by the value of what is received. Chenault v. Commonwealth, 90 Ky. 160 , 11 S.W. 442 . Also it is said in Newton v. Commonwealth, 158 Ky. 4 , 164 S.W. 108, 109 , that: “ ‘The gravamen of the offense denounced by this statute is knowingly receiving stolen goods, and is a separate and distinct offense from the larceny itself.’ ””
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.