State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 1972 · most notably State v. Neal (1943), State v. Griggs (1951)
35 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 Thomas Wood Junior v. United States · State v. Terry · State v. Jackson · State v. Turley · State v. Bayne
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Manifestly the provisions of section 2213 were directed against the obtaining of money or property from a person whose confidence has first been secured by and through means of false and fraudulent representations in connection with acts done, with the intent to cheat and defraud. ... It was intended to reach a class of offenders known as ‘confidence men,’ who obtain the money of their victims by means of, or by the use of, some trick or representation designed to deceive. . . . ‘ ‘ The defendant in this case doubtless realized that, if he simply requested the cashing of the draft upon the Pratt Pood Company, in all probability his request would not be granted. Hence he resorted to the deception and trick of impressing the prosecuting witness that he was the agent and representative of a business concern with which the prosecuting witness had had dealings, and thereby obtained his confidence, and manifestly it was through this deception and trick that he obtained the money from the prosecuting witness upon the worthless draft.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark v. State““The purpose of this statute AAras to provide for a class of false representations not included in some other section dealing with the subject of the ordinary false representations, It- was intended to reach a class of offenders known as ‘confidence men,’ who obtained the money of their victims by means of or by the use of some trick or representation designed to deceive. The very essence of the crime denounced by Section 2213 (R. S. Mo. 1899), is that the injured party must have relied upon some false or deceitful pretense or device and parted with his property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Block
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.