414 So. 2d 141 - Deep v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person commits the crime of theft of property if he:”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dunn · 516 So. 2d 859 - Parker v. State

2. “"The constitutional right of an accused to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not a technical right, but is fundamental and essential to the guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except by due process of law, nor be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. "An indictment should be specific in its averments in four prime aspects to insure this guaranty: (a) to identify the accusation lest the accused should be tried for an offense different from that intended by the grand jury; (b) to enable the defendant to prepare for his defense; (c) that the judgment may inure to his subsequent protection and foreclose the possibility of being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, and (d) to enable the Court, after conviction, to pronounce judgment on the record. "The indictment in this case is couched in language so clear that any person of common understanding would know that the crime of robbery was charged against appellant."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 521 So. 2d 80 - Cade v. State · 431 So. 2d 555 - Bush v. State

3. ““The new definition of ‘theft’ specified in ■§ 13A-8-2, Code of Alabama 1975, as clarified by the definitions given in § 13A-8-1, Code of Alabama 1975, was not intended to and in our opinion does not create a broader range of ‘theft’ crimes. Instead it was intended to unify the old ‘theft’ offenses and thereby ‘eradicate the common law distinctions between the crimes of larceny, embezzlement and false pretenses’ so that ‘one accused of one form of theft [would not be allowed] to escape a legal sanction because of proof of a different form which interferes with property rights in essentially the same way.’ See Commentary to §§ 13A-8-2 through 13A-8-5, Code of Alabama 1975.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dunn · Sheffield v. State