State v. Carcare’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘[n]otwithstanding the general rule that larceny is not committed by a taking which is accomplished with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the property, the offense is larceny if the owner of goods parts with the possession only, for a particular purpose, and the person who receives the possession avowedly for that purpose has a fraudulent intention to make use of it as the means of converting the goods to his own use, and does so convert them, for in such case the fraud supplies the place of the trespass in the taking, or as otherwise stated, the subsequent felonious conversion of the property by the alleged thief will relate back and make the taking and conversion larceny.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 885 F. Supp. 2d 632 - Dilek v. Watson Enterprises, Inc.

2. “The elements of larceny include: (1) the wrongful taking or carrying away of the personal property of another; (2) the existence of a felonious intent in the taker to deprive the owner of [the property] permanently; and (3) the lack of the consent of the owner.... Consequently, a conviction for larceny [cannot] stand ... [when the] property is taken with the knowing consent of the owner.... Felonious intent as applied to larceny means that there is no color of right or excuse for the act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 885 F. Supp. 2d 632 - Dilek v. Watson Enterprises, Inc.