7 Wash. App. 50 - State v. Smyth’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2010
7 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 Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Harris · 73 Wash. 2d 271 - State v. Davis · 72 Wash. 2d 959 - State v. Walcott · 6 Wash. App. 673 - City of Tacoma v. Mundell
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every person who, with intent to deprive or defraud the owner thereof— (1) Shall take, lead or drive away the property of another; or (2) Shall obtain from the owner or another the possession of or title to any property, real or personal, by color or aid of any order for the payment or delivery of property or money or any check or draft, knowing that the maker or drawer of such order, check or draft was not authorized or entitled to make or draw the same, or by color or aid of any fraudulent or false representation, personation or pretence or any false token or writing or by any trick, device, bunco game or fortune-telling; or (3) Having any property in his possession, custody or control, as bailee, factor, pledgee, servant, attorney, agent, employee, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian or officer of any person, estate, association or corporation, or as a public officer, or a person authorized by agreement or by competent authority to take or hold such possession, custody or control, or as a finder thereof, shall secrete, withhold or appropriate the same to his own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto; or (4) Having received any property by reason of a mistake, shall with knowledge of such mistake secrete, withhold or appropriate the same to his own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto; and (5) Every person who, knowing the same to have been so appropriated, shall bring into”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hawkins · State v. Hawkins“Claim of title — When ground of defense. In any prosecution for larceny it shall be a sufficient defense that the property was appropriated openly and avowedly under a claim of title preferred in good faith, even though the claim be untenable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hawkins · State v. Hawkins
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.