2 Neb. Ct. App. 847 - State v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
January 1999
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Pierce · People v. Marques · State v. Garza · Plambeck v. Union Pacific Railroad · 173 Ind. App. 462 - Bigbee v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After thoroughly reviewing the literature in this area, we agree with the majority view from other jurisdictions that in a theft case, in the absence of a specific statutory directive determining value, the face amount of a stolen check which has been accepted in commerce is the value of the property stolen. E.g., Jeffcoat v. U.S., 551 A.2d 1301 (D.C.1988); State v. Pacheco, 636 P.2d 489 (Utah 1981); People v. Marques, 184 Colo. 262 , 520 P.2d 113 (1974); State v. McClellan, 82 Vt. 361 , 73 A. 993 (1909). See, also, 52A C.J.S. Larceny Sec. 60(2) b. (1968). The courts in these cases reason that the instruments were valued by their rightful owners in the face amount of the cheeks, thus establishing value. The courts have generally held that the face amount of a stolen check is its value, notwithstanding a restrictive endorsement such as “For deposit only.” People v. Marques, supra. The courts elsewhere have further held that the face amount of a check at the time of the theft is its value, notwithstanding a subsequent stop-payment order imposed by the bank at the victim’s direction. Jeffcoat v. U.S., supra. We are |4aware of a minority view, found primarily in Texas cases such as Cooper v. State, 509 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), which would require proof of the sufficiency of funds in the maker’s account to determine the value of a stolen check, and we find these cases unpersuasive. 3”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... Long [The defendant] argues that the face amount of the checks is not proof of the value of the property involved is worth more than $500, primarily because the checks could not be negotiated by Long or might'be based on insufficient funds.”
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.