Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 SO2D 650 - Benefield v. State

Benefield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
December 1977
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gustine v. State · Graham v. People · Cortes v. State · 88 So. 2d 918 - Anglin v. Mayo · Clifton 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In a prosecution for obtaining property or money by false pretenses, an intent on the part of the accused to defraud must be established. A wide latitude of proof is permitted. And since intent is an internal and invisible act or resolution of the mind and can be ascertained and judged only by external and visible acts, and by the surrounding circumstances of which a person had knowledge when the alleged criminal act was committed, it is held that an intent to defraud may be inferred from the false representations. It has even been said that where property is obtained by an alleged false pretense, the falsity of the representation, if established, will raise a presumption of an intent to defraud. However, the ‘presumption’ in such a case is not one of law, but one of fact. . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.