Mullican v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
August 1983
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Althause · Ownbey v. State · State v. Higgins · Canter v. State · Rothschild 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The false representation made must be representative of a past or existing fact, whether it be by oral or written words or conduct, which is calculated to deceive and does as a matter of fact deceive; and by means of which by doing these things, the person who does it obtains something of value from the person injured without proper compensation, (citations omitted) ... under this statute, the intent to defraud is the gravamen or an essential element in the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bray““It seems to us that under this statute the intent to defraud is the gravamen or an essential element in the crime.” 210 Tenn. at 511 , 360 S.W.2d 38 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horn 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.