Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2006
6 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 97 Okla. Crim. 338 - Ex Parte Higgs · Brown v. State · Davis v. State · Haines v. State · Kinkade v. City of Tulsa
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Title 47 O.S.A. § 4-104 (a) is based upon Section 34(a) of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-theft Act. In 1956, the National Safety Council included all of the uniform acts pertaining to motor vehicles in a pamphlet denominated ‘Uniform Vehicle Code’. This pamphlet included in a separate chapter the provisions relating to theft under a sub-division denominated ‘Anti-theft Laws’, pertinent section being 4 — 104(a). Both sections 34(a) of the Uniform Anti-theft Law and Section 4-104(a) are worded identically as follows: ‘A person, who, with intent and without right to do so, damages or removes any of its parts or components is guilty of a misdemeanor.’ Under the Uniform Anti-theft Law, the damaging of an automobile or any part of the auto, constituted a misdemeanor, whereas the Oklahoma Legislature, by trying to make the act more comprehensive by including the words Hamper or injure’ limited damage to a part or portion of the vehicle, but not to the whole. After reviewing these pertinent facts, and reading the complete chapter, it is clear that the Legislature intended that this sub-section be for the purpose of closing all loop-holes relating to Larceny of Automobiles. It is evident this law was designed to establish criminal liability in cases of stealing hub-caps, tires, carburetors, spark plugs, etc., or any other tampering with automobiles. NO OTHER EXTENSION OF THE LAW INTO OTHER AREAS WAS CONTEMPLATED NOR WAS IT INTENDED.” (Emphases added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State““A person, who, with intent and without right to do so, injures or tampers with any vehicle or in any other manner damages any part or portion of said vehicle or any accessories, appurtenance or attachments thereto is guilty of a misdemeanor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown 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.