Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 SE2D 705 - State v. . Howley

State v. . Howley’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
May 1983
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1983 · most notably State v. Monk (1975), State v. Britt (1975)

25 state decisions

13019411950196019701980decided

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 Farrar v. Churchill · State v. . Jackson · State v. . Lea · State v. Anderson · White Sewing MacHine Co. v. Bullock

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

  1. “That it shall be sufficient in any indictment for obtaining . . . property by false pretenses to allege that the party accused did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person, and without alleging any ownership of the chattel, money or valuable security; and, on the trial of any such indictment, it shall not be necessary to prove an intent to defraud any particular person, but it shall be sufficient to prove that the party accused did the act charged with an intent to defraud.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The constituent elements of false pretense as defined by the statute, and expressed in the Phifer case, supra , have been repeated without variation in numerous decisions of this Court, among which are: S. v. Dixon , 101 N.C. 741 , 7 S.E. 870 ; S. v. Mangum , 116 N.C. 998 , 21 S.E. 189 ; S. v. Matthews , 121 N.C. 604 , 28 S.E. 469 ; S. v. Whedbee , 152 N.C. 770 , 67 S.E. 60 ; S. v. Claudius , 164 N.C. 521 , 80 S.E. 261 ; S. v. Carlson , 171 N.C. 818 , 89 S.E. 30 ; S. v. Roberts , 189 N.C. 93 , 126 S.E. 161 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In our criminal procedure it is provided by *Page 492 statute, C. S., 4623 (G.S., 15-153 ), that every criminal indictment is sufficient in form if it express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner, and that the indictment shall not be quashed nor the judgment thereon stayed by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill sufficient matter appears to enable the court to proceed to judgment,”
    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.