State v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1966
16 state decisions
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 State v. Avery · State v. Wahl · State v. Bechtelheimer · State v. Crane
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The worthless check must be willfully drawn, knowing at the time there are no funds on deposit to meet it. Beyond that, the Legislature may, for protection of the public interest, require persons to act at their peril, and may punish the doing of a forbidden act without regard to the knowledge, intention, motive, or moral turpitude of the doer. There is no constitutional objection to such legislation, the necessity for which the Legislature is authorized to determine.' * * * "`The defendant contends the statute is in conflict with paragraph 16 of the Bill of Rights, which forbids imprisonment for debt except in case of fraud. It is said the check was given to pay an acknowledged debt, long past due, and neither debtor nor creditor made or lost anything, but the debtor must be imprisoned because the debt was not discharged by check. The information does not disclose the consideration for the check. It may be conceded, however, the statute applies to a transaction of the character described. Nevertheless, the statute does not impose imprisonment for debt * * *.'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brennan · State v. Doyle““In a prosecution for violation of the no-fund check statute (G. S. 1935, 21-554) evidence of the giving of other no-fund checks may be admitted for the sole purpose of throwing light upon defendant’s alleged guilt of the offense charged, by indicating tendency or intention.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Doyle
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.