People v. Warner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains ... anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and: (a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value.... [[Image here]] (5) Theft from the person of another by means other than the use of force, threat, or intimidation is a class 5 felony without regard to the value of the thing taken, (emphasis added)”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. West v. Roberts · People v. Devine

2. “[S]ubsection (5) was designed to cover those situations that would otherwise constitute robbery, but for the lack of force, threats, or intimidation.... [T]heft from the person of another involves circumstances, such as pickpocketing, where something of value is taken from one who is unconscious or unaware of the theft. The invasion of the victim's person presents an element of danger absent in other theft offenses, which justifies the greater penalty accorded those who violate subsection (5). Reading the general theft statute together with the robbery statute, we conclude that theft from the person of another is intended to cover those thefts involving an invasion of the victim's person of which the victim is unaware, but which are not accomplished through the use of force, threats, or intimidation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. IBARRA (GABRIEL) VS. STATE · Ibarra v. State

3. “We fail to find ... that the “theft from the person” provision, as envisioned by the legislature, covers this theft accomplished by short-change transactions. At no time did [appellant] take money from the cashier’s person while she was not looking. Rather, the cashier was aware that she was handing money to [appellant], and it was only by deception that [appellant] was able to short-change her---[Appellant’s] theft lacked the element of danger associated with invading the person of an unaware or unconscious victim for purposes of stealing something of value. The mere taking of the change from the cashier’s hand itself is insufficient to find [appellant] guilty of theft from the person of another. We therefore hold that theft from the person of another does not encompass a theft accomplished by a series of short-change transactions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 451 Pa. Super. 197 - Commonwealth v. Monroe