49 Wis. 2d 105 - Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Pettit (1992), 21 Cal. 4th 935 - People v. Tufunga (1999)
6 federal appellate · 44 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · Butts v. Commonwealth · 17 Ill. 2d 321 - The People v. Boyd · 25 Ill. 2d 396 - The PEOPLE v. Lewis · 37 Wis. 2d 610 - Lisowski v. Chenenoff
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distinction between specific personal property and money in general is important. A debtor can owe another $150 but the $150 in the debtor's pocket is not the specific property of the creditor. One has the intention to steal when he takes money from another's possession against the possessor's consent even though he also intends to apply the stolen money to a debt. The efficacy of self-help by force to enforce a bona fide claim for money does not negate the intent to commit robbery. Can one break into a bank and take money so long as he does not take more than the balance in his savings or checking account? Under the majority rule the accused must make change to be sure he collects no more than the amount he believes is due him on the debt. A debt is a relationship and in respect to money seldom finds itself embedded in specific coins and currency of the realm. Consequently, taking money from a debtor by force to pay a debt is robbery. The creditor has no such right of appropriation and allocation.”
12 later decisions 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.