Beasley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2008
22 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 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 95 So. 2d 589 - Jalbert v. State · 291 So. 2d 241 - Duncan v. State · 290 So. 2d 30 - State v. Davis · 287 So. 2d 419 - Marion v. State
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is true that the owner may testify concerning the market value of his property at the time of theft. See Platt v. State, supra. But, the owner’s testimony in the instant case does not qualify as competent proof of market value. The testimony demonstrates that the owner could not establish the present market value of the stereo when stolen. While the state is correct that the intent to commit grand larceny may be proven by circumstantial evidence, we think that the actual market value of an item which is stolen usually may be easily proven by direct testimony. For example, it may be possible without great difficulty or undue expense to the state simply to produce expert testimony from a witness who is familiar with the market value of a used stereo similar to the one involved in this case. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the state never proved value in the trial sub judi-ce, and its proof established only that appel lant committed petit larceny. 305 So.2d at 286-287 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. State
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.