42 Cal. 2d 246 - People v. Ashley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 414 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 459 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Theft’ is a term that was not employed by the common law of crimes; at least, the term was not used to identify a common law offense. By the definition of a statutory crime of theft, was it intended to broaden significantly the scope of the traditional crimes within its purview? Consolidation does not mean enlargement. There is authority that simplified stealing statutes neither broaden the crime of larceny nor proscribe conduct previously legal and that the fact of consolidation does not change the elements of the several offenses consolidated. The drafters of the Kansas statute did not generally intend to prohibit conduct that was not criminal prior to the enactment of the code. . . . “. . . [Tjhere was no intent, nor is there evidence of an intent, to change the basic natures of the crimes the new act comprehends. . . . “. . . At the same time, the elements of the several types of theft merged together have not been changed, and a judgment of conviction based on a general verdict of guilty can be sustained only if the evidence discloses elements of one of the consolidated offenses.” (20 Kan. L. Rev. 398-400.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garcia v. Lynch · 2 Cal. 5th 858 - People v. Gonzales

2. “To support a conviction of theft for obtaining property by false pretenses, it must be shown that the defendant made a false pretense or representation with intent to defraud the owner of his property, and that the owner was in fact defrauded.... The false pretense or representation must have materially influenced the owner to part with his property....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 Cal. App. 2d 710 - People v. Dimitrovich · 64 Cal. App. 3d 43 - People v. Lorenzo

3. ““Juries need no longer be concerned with the technical differences between the several types of theft, and can return a general verdict of guilty if they find that an ‘unlawful taking’ has been proved.” See also People v. McManus, 180 Cal.App.2d 19, 32 [4] [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 642 ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Cal. App. 2d 688 - People v. Reinschreiber · 191 Cal. App. 2d 46 - People v. Schwenkner