Stigars v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2019
1 federal appellate · 17 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Blockburger v. United States · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright
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.
“(a) A person is guilty of theft when the person takes, exercises control over or obtains property of another person intending to deprive that person of it or appropriate it. Theft includes the acts described in §§ 842-846 of this title. (b) A person is guilty of theft if the person, in any capacity, legally receives, takes, exercises control over or obtains property of another which is the subject of theft, and fraudulently converts same to the person’s own use. (e)(1) Except where a victim is 60 years of age or older, theft is a class A misdemean- or unless the value of the property received, retained or disposed of is $1,000 or greater, in which ease it is a class G felony. (2) Where a victim is 60 years of age or older, theft is a class G felony unless the value of the property received, retained or disposed of is $1,000 or greater, in which case it is a class F felony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Parker v. State · Forrest v. State“this Court has generally employed the Blockburger test,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Mills v. State · Parker v. State“The key question presented by a claim of double jeopardy that is based on multiple punishments is: did the General Assembly intend to impose more than one punishment for a single occurrence of criminal conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Parker v. State
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.