State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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. “The crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses is complete when the fraud intended is consummated by obtaining title to and possession of the property by means of a knowingly false representation or pretense. The crime is not purged by ultimate restoration or payment to the victim. It is sufficient if the fraud of the accused has put the victim in such a position that he or she may eventually suffer loss. The appellant in the case now before this Court relies upon ... the minority view that an essential element of the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses is a pecuniary loss by the victim. Like the court in State v. Mills [ 96 Ariz. 377 , 396 P.2d 5 (1964) ], this Court believes the better view is aptly expressed by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Rowe [ 56 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1932) ] : Civilly of course the action [for deceit] would fail without proof of damage, but that [principle] has no application to criminal liability. A man [or woman] is none the less cheated out of his [or her] property, when he [or she] is induced to part with it by fraud, because he [or she] gets a quid pro quo of equal value.... [The victim] has lost his [or her] chance to bargain with the facts before him [or her]. That is the evil against which the [criminal] statute is directed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martin v. Mowery (In re Mowery)