Decker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2006
15 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Oregon v. Mathiason · United States v. Bayer · United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distinguishing factor between theft and conversion is the intent to deprive the true owner of the use or value of the stolen goods. ... There is no serious dispute of any probative value in the evidence concerning Decker's intent to permanently deprive the University of the use and value of its property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. MQM v. State · M.Q.M. v. State“In determining the propriety of instructing the jury on a lesser included offense, a trial court employs a two-part test. The first part requires an examination of the statutes defining the greater and lesser offenses, together with the factual allegations in the charging information. The court then determines whether the lesser offense is "factually" included in the charging information, and alleges the commission of the greater or "inherent ly" included offense in the greater offense. The second part requires the court to determine whether, assuming an offense was committed, the evidence would, prima facie, warrant a conviction for a lesser included offense, or could only warrant a conviction for the principal charge, in which case the lesser included offense instruction should not be given. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tomlinson v. State“If it determined that the lesser offense is "included" within the greater crime charged, step 2 is triggered. It is designed to determine if the evidence warrants an instruction on the lesser and included offense. Generally, that determination hinges on whether a serious evidentiary dispute exists with respect to the element which distinguishes the greater and lesser offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tomlinson v. State
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.