Foor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1990
12 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 · In re Myers
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The worthless check act does not concern itself with whether or not the offender was able to keep his ill-gotten gains. G.S. 1949, 21-554 provided: “ ‘It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, or partnership, to draw, make, utter, issue or deliver to another any check or draft on any bank or depository for the payment of money or its equivalent, knowing, at the time of the making, drawing, uttering or delivery of any such check or draft as aforesaid that he has no funds on deposit in or credits with such bank or depository with which to pay such check or draft upon presentation.’ “It is the uttering, or delivering the check for the payment of money or the equivalent that constitutes the offense. The fact that the swindled party is able to recover the money or its equivalent does not abate or lessen the crime. The purpose of the act was to stop the mischievous practice of overdrafting and ‘check-kiting’ by the issuance of no fund checks. See, e.g., The State v. Avery, 111 Kan. 588 , 207 Pac. 838 ; In re Myers, 119 Kan. 270 , 237 Pac. 1026 . “The offense was complete when the worthless check was issued to the Earl Young Motor Company as a down payment on the automobile.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The provisions of K. S. A. 60-1507 do not provide a method of inquiry into the propriety of the acts of the Kansas Board of Probation and Parole. The provisions are available only for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety of a judgment or sentence. . . . “Proceedings and acts of the board which occur subsequent to the original sentence can have no effect upon the validity of the sentence.” (p. 620.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prescher v. State
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.