Smith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this case, Smith’s conduct supports the same finding of a single continuous criminal intent as that in Caudill . This is the type of conduct that the legislature intended to prevent. Moreover, as the Commonwealth has pointed out, Smith could have been indicted on multiple felony counts based on each weekly report submitted totaling $100.00 or more. Smith’s authorities in support of his argument that KRS 514.040 was designed to punish individual acts rather than a continuing course of conduct are distinguishable.... The statute under which the defendant was charged, KRS 514.110, was designed, according to the Supreme Court, to protect “an owner,” and did not operate to prohibit a continuing course of conduct. [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexander v. Commonwealth

2. “The allegations made by the Commonwealth in this case, if believed, certainly form a basis upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that appellee had a single continuous criminal intent and that each theft was part of a general larcenous scheme, to wit, to issue or renew licenses, “pocket” the fee, and destroy all records of the transaction, all for the single criminal purpose of embezzlement. [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexander v. Commonwealth