30 Wash. App. 351 - State v. Dorman’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2010
17 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 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · 6 Wash. App. 284 - State v. Birdwell · 94 Wash. 2d 129 - State v. Hanton · 92 Wash. 2d 541 - State v. King · State v. Larson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(7) "Wrongfully obtains" or "exerts unauthorized control" means: (a) To take the property or services of another; or (b) Having any property or services in one's possession, custody or control as bailee, factor, pledgee, servant, attorney, agent, employee, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, or officer of any person, estate, association, or corporation, or as a public officer, or person authorized by agreement or competent authority to take or hold such possession, custody, or control, to secrete, withhold, or appropriate the same to his own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto[.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) "Theft" means: (a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized, control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him of such property or services; or (b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him of such property or services . . ..”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We find nothing in the current criminal code to suggest that the historical distinction between larceny and embezzlement has been eliminated. In fact, given that RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b) is essentially identical to embezzlement under former RCW 9.54.010(3), we can only conclude that the legislature intended that the distinction be maintained. The trial court did not err in instructing that intent to permanently deprive was not an element of the crime.”
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.