State v. Sorrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The testimony * * * was admissible for the purpose o E ascertaining the fair market value of the stolen property in order to grade the offense, i. e., to establish grand larceny as distinguished from petty larceny. Fail-market value does not depend solely on wholesale or cost price. Evidence of retail price of stolen goods is admissible to show the value of the goods. (Citations omitted.) The wholesale and retail prices, established by experts if necessary, may fix the range within which the jury may find fair market value.” State v. Sorrell, 95 Ariz. 220, at 224 , 388 P.2d 429, at 431 (1964).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Ariz. App. 569 - State v. Randle · 5 Ariz. App. 524 - State v. Marlin

2. ““ * * * The wholesale and retail prices, established by experts if necessary, may fix the range within which the jury may find fair market value. * * * * * * * * * “And finally, we will not disturb a lower court’s denial of a motion for new trial when it appears there was no abuse of discretion. State of Arizona v. Quintana, 92 Ariz. 267 , 376 P.2d 130 ; State v. Milton, 85 Ariz. 69 , 331 P.2d 846 (1958). Nor will we weigh the evidence on a claim that the verdict is contrary to the law and to the evidence unless there is an absence of substantial evidence supporting defendant’s guilt. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jones · State v. Taylor