State v. Ducker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The money in excess of that which the appellant was entitled to receive, was taken without the owner’s consent, and that which was thus taken was appropriated to the appellant’s use with an intent to cheat and fraudulently to deprive the owner thereof. “These two elements, being both present in this case, are sufficient to constitute the crime of larceny, for it will not do to say that the owner parted with his money voluntarily, and, therefore, there could not have been any unlawful taking. While it may be said that it was the physical act of the owner in handing that which was his to another, yet there was lacking his intellectual and intelligent assent to the transfer, upon which the consent necessarily depended. And so in the case ‘where money or property is obtained from the owner by another upon some false pretense, for a temporary use only, with the intent to feloni- ously appropriate it permanently, the taking thereof, though, with the owner’s consent, is larceny.’ Wolfstein v. People, [ 6 Hun 121 ]; People v. McGarren, 17 Wend. 460 ; People v. Grail, [Call] 1 Denio 120 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cook v. State