Daugherty v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably William H. Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC (2013), Burford v. State (1992)
2 federal appellate · 60 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 53 Cal. App. 45 - People v. Holder · Motlow v. State · Pauly v. Keebler · 63 Cal. App. 149 - American Surety Co. of New York v. Bank of Italy · Henley 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under this statute it is a criminal offense for a contractor to retain or appropriate to his own use payments made to him on a contract for realty improvement without paying the amounts due for labor and materials which may become a lien on the realty. A statute of this nature is intended to make the payments to the contractor trust funds for the payment of labor and materials, and to afford protection against contractors who receive money for construction or repair of buildings and divert it to other uses prior to payment of claims for labor, materials, or other charges in connection with the work on the building. The legislative purpose is to punish for a fraudulent conversion and not for failure to comply with the contractual obligation. The essential elements for the commission of the offense are the payment of the money to a contractor by the owner for the construction of a building and a diversion of the money to other purposes by the contractor prior to the payment of all claims for which the money constitutes a trust fund.” 216 Tenn. at 671-672 , 393 S.W.2d at 741 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“64-1140. Misapplication of contract payments. — Any contractor, subcontractor, or other person who, with intent to defraud, shall use the proceeds of any payment made to him on account of improving certain real property for any other purpose than to pay for labor performed on, or materials furnished by his order for, this specific improvement, while any amount for which he may be or become liable for such labor or materials remains unpaid, shall be guilty of a felony and punished accordingly. 64 — 1142. Prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. — Such use of the proceeds mentioned in §§ 64-1139 — 64-1141 for any purpose other than the payment of such unpaid amount shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... that a person exercising a contractual relation shall obtain funds for a specific purpose and shall divert those funds to his own use, leaving outstanding obligations for which the creditor would have a lien upon the property owned by the payor of such funds.... This very closely approaches embezzlement in that there exists the confidential relation and the person who is charged by reason of such relationship misappropriates or diverts the funds paid to him for a specific purpose and uses them for his own ends.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Patterson
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.