The case of indicates that D can assume any of the rights of the owner, not all.

The case of says there can be an appropriation even where V has consented to D taking the property.

The case of allows an appropriation where the property was a gift to D

The case of states that body parts can be personal property if they have been treated for teaching purposes.

The case of states that a person can steal their own property.

The case of states that property can belong to another even if they did not know it was there.

The case of states that where money is given to D for a specific purpose, when D spends that money one something else, the money belongs to V again and it is theft.

The case of states that where money is given to D but there is no legal obligation to spend it on a specific thing, it is not theft if D fails to spend it on what was expected.

The case of 1983) states that where property is received by mistake and there is a legal obligation to return it, it is theft if D does not.

The case of states that D's belief in the negative definition of dishonesty must be genuine rather than reasonable.

The case of lays down the test for dishonesty in theft

The case of states that where D picks up property intending to steal it, then changes his mind and replaces it, he has the intention to permanently deprive.

The case of states that where D returns property without it's goodness, virtue and practical value, he had the intention to permanently deprive.

The case of states that where D took property intending to sell it back to V, he still had the intention to permanently deprive.