Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 Nev. 459 - Robey v. State

Robey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2025

12 state decisions

6019801990200020102020decided

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 Morissette v. United States · Speidel v. State · People v. Washburn · State v. Deutscher · Harvey v. State

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

  1. “[T]he word “wilfully”, when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted and as used in my instructions, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or to make the omission in question. The word does not require in its meaning any intent to violate law, or to acquire any advantage.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an ... omission which is done intentionally, deliberately or designedly, as distinguished from an ... omission done accidentally, inadvertently or innocently.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “With the instruction used by the district court, it would be possible for the jury to find that a public officer “wilfully” omitted to pay over public funds by an omission without any conscious awareness of a wrongful act. Such inadvertence could possibly result in a felony conviction, a $5,000 fine, and a ten year prison sentence. This is contrary to the general conditions of penal liability requiring not only the doing of some act by the person to be held liable, but also the existence of a guilty mind during the commission of the act. [I]n order to establish misappropriation of public funds the state must prove the conscious commission of a wrong. Since this is an element of the offense the court must adequately instruct the jury, and the failure to do otherwise constitutes reversible error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.