State v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Merrill (1978), State v. Williams (1993)
45 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 State v. Leinweber · 1 Cal. 3d 41 - People v. Tijerina · People v. Irrizari · Husten v. United States · The People v. Fognini
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Value’ for purposes of the theft statute is defined by Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 1(3), as ‘the retail market value at the time of the theft.’ The value of a mass-marketed item taken from a retail store is not necessarily the value of the item in the market in which the owner of the store purchased it but the value in the market in which the item was being sold. Although testimony as to the price on the price tag ordinarily would be sufficient to justify a finding that that was the retail market value of the item taken, it is not conclusive, for the price charged by the store from which the item is taken may not accurately reflect the market value of the item. People v. Tijerina, 1 Cal.3d 41 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 264 , 459 P.2d 680 (1969). A defendant is free to introduce direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the value of the item in the retail market and thus, as here, may cau other witnesses to testify that other stores sell the item for less, Husten v. United States, 95 F.2d 168 (8 Cir. 1938); People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142 , 182 N.Y.S.2d 361 , 156 N.E.2d 69 (1959); or he may introduce evidence suggesting that the item does not have much of a market any more as, for example, where an item has been on the shelf unsold for a long time. People v. Fognini, 374 Ill. 161 , 28 N.E.2d 95 (1940).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stout · State v. Downing““Where the prosecution has offered uncontroverted evidence on an element necessary for a conviction of the greater crime but not necessary for the lesser offense, a duty rests on the defendant to offer at least some evidence to dispute this issue if he wishes to have the benefit of a lesser offense instruction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Huebner
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.