State v. Forshee’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2009
10 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 People v. Ross · State v. Parker · State v. Seymour
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) A person commits theft if he obtains or exercises control over property of another by deception and with a purpose to deprive him thereof."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. LeFevre · State v. Lakey“The significant question is whether defendant deprived the victims of property having a value of over $1,000. Defendant argues that the Smiths [the victims] received a quid pro quo and that the fair market value of the vehicle should be deducted from the money received by defendant in determining the degree of the crime * * * * The value of the property determines the degree of the offense and must be proved by the State. But the degree of the crime must be measured by the value of the property obtained by the defendant as a result of the deception, rather than the value of any property received by the victim. In People v. Ross, 25 Cal.App.3d 190 , 100 Cal.Rptr. 703 (1972), the Court considered the question here presented and held- that ,the defendant could not offset the value of the automobile used to accomplish the fraud against the amount obtained from the victims to reduce the crime to petty theft. The Court there reasoned that subsequent restoration, restitution or repayment is not a defense to this crime and neither is the fact that the victim received some value for his money, for the victim is defrauded if he did not receive what he bargained for, in the full amount extracted by the defendant. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Martinez“* * * the degree of the crime must be measured by the value of the property obtained by the defendant as a result of the deception, rather than the value of any property received by the victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Martinez
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.