Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 N.J. Super. 235 - State v. Curtis

148 N.J. Super. 235 - State v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 1992
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1992

6 state decisions

30197719801990decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Leary v. United States · Turner v. United States · Tot v. United States · State v. Johnson

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

  1. “... that the statutory terminology of “presumptive evidence” merely has the effect of permitting an inference to be drawn from the established facts that another fact exists without the necessity of proof of the inferred fact. It does not mandate guilt. Nor does it obviate the fundamental burden of the State to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 148 N.J.Super. at 240-241 ]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In view of the preconditions, to the application of the inference it is our conclusion with substantial assurance that it is more likely than not that the customer participated in the tampering resulting in the failure of the meter to record fully the current supplied to that customer, with the fraudulent intent of depriving the electric utility of the proper compensation for its services. Such an inference is rational when tested by human conduct and experience, for the only person who would usually be motivated to tamper with a meter is the one who would profit financially from such tampering. [Id. at 239-40.]”
    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.