Kaufman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 1981
20 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 Edwards v. State · State v. Avery · Lyman v. State · Williams v. Territory of Arizona · Commonwealth v. Warren
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud another, shall obtain money, credit, goods ..., or anything of value ..., by means of a check, draft or any other negotiable instrument of any kind drawn, whether by such person or by any other person, persons, firm or corporation, upon any bank . .. and the same be not paid upon presentation, shall be deemed to have obtained such money, credit, goods, services ... or things of value by means of a false pretense.. . . The giving of the aforesaid worthless check, draft or negotiable instrument ... shall be prima facie evidence of intent to cheat or defraud; provided that if such person shall be a bona fide resident of the State of Maryland and shall deposit with the drawee of such paper .. . within ten days thereafter funds sufficient to meet the same, with all costs and interest which may have accrued he shall not be prosecuted under this section, and no prosecution either by presentment, indictment or otherwise, shall be instituted or commenced until after the expiration of said period of ten days.” (Emphasis added.) Art. 27, § 142.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is also essential to a conviction of this offense that the person who received the worthless check must have relied upon the defendant’s representations, and thereby was fraudulently induced to part with his money or property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.