State v. Thibodeau’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably State v. Vance (1979), State v. Crocker (1981)
31 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 47 Cal. 2d 566 - People v. Riser · State v. Dotson · State v. Charette · State v. McKeough · State v. Lafferty
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We recognize that the custody of an exhibit readily identifiable by distinguishing features or hardly subject to change does not require the safeguards necessary to preserve the integrity of real evidence of a fungible or volatile nature which may be easily destroyed by natural or other forces. It is obvious that the same protective measures need not be taken to preserve the evidentiary probative value of such an exhibit as a coffee pot [here a pistol] as should surround the chain of custody of a bag of narcotics.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Heald“The intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property stolen inheres in the word ‘steal’ and in the expression ‘steal, take and carry away,’ and when such terms are used in a criminal accusation, it is not necessary to further charge therein the intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property. (Citations omitted.) See also State v. Miles, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 473 (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Provost““If a person’s conduct in connection with the perpetration of a crime by another is governed by prearrangement and his participation therein is an active and integral part of an entire plan of execution of the prearranged criminal activity, that person may be charged and convicted as a principal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dunn
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.