People v. Marques’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Kogan v. People (1988), People v. Larson (1977)
2 federal appellate · 90 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 People v. Bennett · Felkner v. State · People v. Sneed · Maisel v. People · Whitman v. People
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[the prima facie value of a check is its face value. This rule comports with the general rule that value in a theft case is market value.... Where a check is the thing to be valued, the willing buyer is normally the draw[eel[ 4 ] bank [who] will pay the face amount of the instrument, or the drawer will make good the instrument.... The value of the thing lost is not limited to what the thief could realize on the instrument."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The value of the thing lost is not limited to what the thief could realize on the instrument.... [T]he loss is measured by what the owner could expect to receive for the instrument. The restrictive endorsement is only for the protection of the indorser and does not lessen the value of the check in any way.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he prosecution must prove that (1) the principal committed the crime . (2) the accessories had knowledge that the principal intended to commit the crime, and (3) having this knowledge, the accessories did in fact aid or encourage, with the specific intent to so aid or encourage, the principal in the commission of the crime.” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. R. V.
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.