Isaac v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In considering this question, one is immediately struck with the similarities between this type of prohibited conduct and the conduct involved in the ‘single larceny doctrine’, which prevents convictions of multiple thefts when property belonging to the same person or several persons is taken at the same time and from the same place. See 3 Wharton’s Criminal Law Sec. 358-59 (14th ed. 1980). Applied by an ‘overwhelming majority’ of jurisdictions, Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d 1407 , 1409 (1971), the single larceny doctrine has long been cited as a guiding rule in Indiana, see State v. Elder, (1879) 65 Ind. 282 , and followed in numerous Indiana decisions. Williams v. State, (1979) [271] Ind. [656] 395 N.E.2d 239 ; Furnace v. State, (1899) 153 Ind. 93 , 54 N.E. 441 ; Holt v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 383 N.E.2d 467 . See also Bryant v. State, (1979) 252 Ind. 17 , 245 N.E.2d 156 ; Bell v. State, (1873) 42 Ind. 335 ; Jackson v. State, (1860) 14 Ind. 327 . The rationale behind the rule is that the simultaneous taking of several articles from the same location is the result of a single intent and design. Holt, supra; 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure Sec. 450-51 (Anderson ed. 1957). The particular ownership or the number of articles taken does not give character to the act of theft, but is merely a part of the description of the offense committed. Furnace, supra; Holt, supra. We find this rationale controlling in this case and are unaware of any authority calling for the application of a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moritz v. State

2. “"... (i) any book, magazine, newspaper, or other printed or written material; (ii) any picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture or other pictorial representation; (iii) any statue or other figure; (iv) any recording, transcription, or mechanical, chemical, or electrical reproduction; or (v) any other articles, equipment, machines, or materials."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. American Film Distributors, Inc. v. State