7 Ariz. App. 576 - State v. McCormick’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 1990 · most notably United States v. Whitlock (1980), State v. Finch (1978)
30 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 42 Cal. 2d 246 - People v. Ashley · Kemble v. United States · State v. Bearden · Van Hoff v. Redevelopment Agency of San Francisco · Smith v. State of Mississippi
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Theft’ is a term that was not employed by the common law of crimes; at least, the term was not used to identify a common law offense. By the definition of a statutory crime of theft, was it intended to broaden significantly the scope of the traditional crimes within its purview? Consolidation does not mean enlargement. There is authority that simplified stealing statutes neither broaden the crime of larceny nor proscribe conduct previously legal and that the fact of consolidation does not change the elements of the several offenses consolidated. The drafters of the Kansas statute did not generally intend to prohibit conduct that was not criminal prior to the enactment of the code. . . . “. . . [Tjhere was no intent, nor is there evidence of an intent, to change the basic natures of the crimes the new act comprehends. . . . “. . . At the same time, the elements of the several types of theft merged together have not been changed, and a judgment of conviction based on a general verdict of guilty can be sustained only if the evidence discloses elements of one of the consolidated offenses.” (20 Kan. L. Rev. 398-400.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Finch““No evidence in support thereof was attached to the motion nor was a hearing held thereon. The trial court, however, granted to the defendant an opportunity to file an amended motion to quash the indictment prior to a specified future date. No amended motion was filed and more than two months after the expiration of the allotted period the trial court, by minute entry, denied the original motion to quash. The defendant had the burden of establishing the alleged defect in the jury impanelment (CITATIONS OMITTED), and since the motion was based on allegations of facts dehors the record in the criminal cause, it was incumbent upon him to present evidence in support of the allegations of his motion to quash.” (CITATIONS OMITTED) 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 at 136 (1968).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McCormick““Is entrusted with * * * property for the use of any other person, and fraudulently appropriates to any use qr purpose not in the due and lawful' execution of his trust the property which he has in his possession * * * by virtue of his trust, or secretes it with a fraudulent intent to appropriate it to such use or purpose.” A.R.S. § 13-682, subsec. 1, as amended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.