State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2017
7 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 7 Ariz. App. 576 - State v. McCormick · 37 Colo. App. 71 - People v. Martinez · Maes v. People
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Conduct denominated theft in this part constitutes a single offense embracing the separate offenses such as those heretofore known as larceny, larceny by trick, larceny by bailees, embezzlement, false pretense, extortion, blackmail, receiving stolen property. An accusation of theft may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner specified in sections 76-6-404 through 76-6-410, subject to the power of the court to ensure a fair trial by granting a continuance or other appropriate relief where the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by lack of fair notice or by surprise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fowler · State v. Bush“[a]ll that is now required is to simply plead the general offense of theft and the accusation may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner specified in sections 404 through 410 of the Code....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hummel · State v. Bush“The Utah theft statute consolidates the offenses known under prior law as larceny, embezzlement, extortion, false pretenses, and receiving stolen property into a single offense entitled theft, and clearly evidences the legislative intent to eliminate the previously existing necessity of pleading and proving those separate and distinct offenses. All that is now required is to simply plead the general offense of theft [footnote indicates section 76-6-403] and the accusation may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner specified in sections 404 through 410 of the Code, including that of receiving stolen property, as was done in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fowler
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.