State v. Moyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It was unknown to the common law, and the statute was enacted for the purpose of supplying what were regarded as defects in the common law of larceny, so as to reach and punish for the fraudulent conversion of money or property which could not be reached by the common law. ... The distinction between embezzlement and larceny is that embezzlement is the wrongful conversion of property without trespass, or where the original taking and possession is lawful. In order to constitute the offense, it is necessary that the property embezzled should come lawfully into the hands of the party embezzling, and by virtue of the position of trust he occupies to the person whose property he takes....” [ 58 W.Va. at 149 , 52 S.E. at 32 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 W. Va. 572 - State v. Frasher

2. ““On the question of fraudulent conversion and criminal intent, it is competent to prove the financial condition of the defendant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. United States