State v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Barber (2004), State v. Osborne (1991)
40 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 1 Cal. 3d 444 - People v. Hood · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Giddings · State v. Gonzales
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For you to find the defendant guilty of larceny ..., the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: 1. The defendant took and carried away ..., (describe property) belonging to another, (which had a market value over $•••); 2. At the time he took this property, the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of it; 3. This happened in New Mexico on or about the ... day of ..., 19 ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gee“When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a further consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intention is deemed to be general criminal intent. When the definition refers to defendant’s intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Beach“Rule 41(a), codifying prior court decisions, requires the district court to instruct the jury on the law essential for a conviction of the crimes submitted to the jury even if no requested instructions are presented by the parties. (Our emphasis.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Najar
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.