23 Md. App. 439 - Baskerville v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2011
13 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 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · 9 Md. App. 15 - Metz v. State · 36 Cal. 2d 373 - People v. Jones · State v. Mills · 11 Md. App. 555 - Polisher 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One who has extended credit in reliance upon a mortgage on real estate which is falsely represented to be a first mortgage when in fact it is subject to a prior recorded mortgage for more than the land is worth, or is a mortgage upon property which the mortgagor does not own, has been defrauded, even if the debtor has an intent to pay the debt. The lender intended to be a secured creditor but by reason of the false representation his position is for all practical purposes that of an unsecured creditor. There is an obvious and unreasonable risk of loss which has been forced upon him, without his knowledge or consent, by reason of the deceit. This risk which the creditor did not intend to assume was imposed upon him by the intentional act of the debtor, and this amounts to an intent to defraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Instructive in this regard is Clark and Marshall’s Law of Crimes (Wingersky Edition, 1958) at 823: “If a person, however, obtains money or goods by false pretenses, he is none the less guilty because he intends to repay the money or pay for the goods, for ‘an intent to defraud is consistent with an intent to undo the effect of the fraud if the offender should be able to do so.’ That there is ability as well as intent to repay is no defense. Even an offer to repay or actual payment is no defense.” See Commonwealth v. Schwartz, [13 Ky. L.Rptr. 929,] 92 Ky. 510 , 18 S.W. 775 [ (1892) ]; People v. Oscar, 105 Mich. 704 , 63 N.W. 971 [ (1895) ]. The same point is made in 32 Am.Jur.2d False Pretenses, § 33, “Intent to defraud,” at p. 197: “If an accused had the requisite intent, he may be guilty of obtaining money or property by false pretenses even though he may have intended to repay the money or restore the property.” See also Perkins, Criminal Law (2d Edition, 1969) at 312-313: “It is now necessary to emphasize that an intent to repay will not necessarily prevent guilt of this crime....[”]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If by reason of false representations [regarding] the debtor, the creditor has assumed a substantially greater risk than would have been his if the debtor’s [qualifications] had been true,... the crime is satisfied even if the security is not entirely worthless, or even if it may turn out to be adequate... There is an obvious and unreasonable risk of loss which has been forced upon [the creditor], without his knowledge or consent, by reason óf the [wrongdoer’s] deceit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.