Willis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Basoff v. State (1977), Piracci v. State (1955)
51 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 · Simmons v. State · MacEwen v. State · Anello v. State · Lyman 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[i]t was obviously because of the difficulty so frequently encountered in proving fraudulent intent that the Legislature provided in the Worthless Check Act that the giving of a worthless check raises a prima facie presumption of an intent to defraud. In a prosecution under this Act the burden is on the accused to show that he had no intent to defraud, and the presumption may be rebutted by proof of proper facts negativing a fraudulent intent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud another, shall obtain money, credit, goods, ... by means of a check, draft or any other negotiable instrument of any kind drawn ... shall be deemed to have obtained such money, credit, goods, ... 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 [.]” (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a representation of an existing fact made with intent to defraud, and that the operation of such representation as a deception induced a transfer and the obtaining of the money or property by the person committing the fraud to the loss of another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marr 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.