Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 FLA 449 - Lowe v. State

Lowe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1902

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
February 1995
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1995

10 state decisions

301902191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Holland v. State

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

  1. “[A] taking by the voluntary consent of the owner, or his authorized servant or agent, even though with a felonious intent, does not constitute larceny. But where the criminal design originates with the accused, and the owner does not, in person or by an agent or servant, suggest the design, nor actively urge the accused on to the commission of the crime, the mere fact that such owner, suspecting that the accused intends to steal his property, in person or through a servant or agent, exposes the property, or neglects to protect it, or furnishes facilities for the execution of the criminal design, under the expectation that the accused will take the property or avail himself of the facilities furnished, will not amount to a consent in law, even though the agent or servant of such owner by his instructions appears to cooperate in the execution of the crime. 1 Bish. New Cr. Law, § 262; Alexander v. State, 12 Tex. 540 ; Dodge v. Brittain, [19 Tenn.] Meigs, 84. See, also, note to Connor v. People (Colo.Sup.) [ 18 Colo. 373 ] 33 P. 159 , 25 L.R.A. 341 , 36 Am.St.Rep. 295 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.