Otte v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n denying a petition for rehearing in Neel v. State, we said: It is well settled that where a person by trick or fraud obtains possession of property intending at the time of obtaining the property to convert it to his own use, and does so convert it, the fraud is the equivalent of a felonious taking and the offense is larceny. [[Image here]] Fraud vitiates the consent of the victim if the other elements of the crime are present. State v. Jesser, 95 Idaho 43 , 501 P.2d 727, 735 . It was said in Jesser , quoting from a “landmark” Massachusetts decision (Commonwealth v. Barry, 124 Mass. 325, 327 ) (1878): If the possession is fraudulently obtained, with intent on the part of the person obtaining it, at the time he receives it, to convert the same to his own use, and the person parting with it intends to part with his possession merely, and not with his title to the property, the offence is larceny. We agree with the rule expressed by the court in Commonwealth v. Barry and consider it applicable to the fact-situation in the case at hand. We have said essentially the same thing in Neel v. State, supra, where we said: In “larceny” owner of the property has no intention to part with title therein to the person taking it although he may intend to part with possession,....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richard Carl Bohling v. State