596 So. 2d 1055 - State v. Camp’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2014
18 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 547 So. 2d 1201 - Rhodes v. State · 576 So. 2d 1310 - Perkins v. State · Feiler v. State · 579 So. 2d 763 - State v. Camp · 477 So. 2d 649 - Grimes v. State
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]vidence of theft only, with the intent personally to put the stolen item or items to normal use, constitutes only the crime of theft and not the crime of trafficking or dealing in stolen property within the meaning of chapter 812, Florida Statutes, even if the normal use is achieved by some form of transfer, distribution, dispensation, or disposition of the item.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Allwine v. State · Hall v. State“[S]ection 812.019, which is part of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act, Chapter 77-342, Laws of Florida, is intended to punish those who knowingly deal in property stolen by others. [ State v.] Camp , 579 So.2d [763, 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)]. The basic scenario envisions a person who steals and then sells the stolen property to a middleman (the "fence") who in turn resells the property to a third person. See generally G. Robert Blakely & Michael Goldsmith, Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform, 74 Mich. L.Rev. 1512 (1976). The statute punishes both the initial thief and the fence. See § 812.012(7), Fla. Stat. (1989). According to its legislative history, this law is an adaptation of the Model Theft and Fencing Act, consistent with the organization of Florida law, as proposed by G. Robert Blakely and Michael Goldsmith in their exhaustive study on stolen property law. Blakely and Goldsmith, Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform, 74 Mich. L.Rev. 1512 (1976). That article focuses on the receivers of stolen property as the central figures in theft activities, and that the law should be focused on the criminal system that redistributes stolen goods. Staff of Fla. H.R. Select Comm. on Organized Crime, CS for SB 1431 (1977) Memorandum (April 7, 1977).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of stolen property to another person, or to buy, receive, possess, or obtain control of stolen property, with intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of the property to another person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Michielli
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.