Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 Md. 423 - Draper v. State

Draper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

2 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2012

2 district · 15 state decisions

100196319701980199020002010decided

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 Felkner v. State · Lyman v. State · Levy v. State · Nelson v. State · Bishop 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.

  1. ““This was also evidence, from which we think the jury could properly find the appellant guilty of false pretences, under Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 140, as well. The necessity for reliance stressed in Levy v. State, [ 225 Md. 201 , 170 A. 2d 216 , cert. denied, 368 U. S. 865 (1961)], and Marr v. State, 227 Md. 510, 515 [, 177 A. 2d 862 (1962)], is met in the instant case by the evidence that Draper falsely represented himself to be the payee of the check and that Fears released the car, without payment of the balance due of $4.74, relying upon the validity of the forged check which he retained as security, at the appellant’s request. We think this would be sufficient either under Code (1957), Art. 27, secs. 140 or 142. It is not contended that there was any lack of proof of fraudulent intent, under sec. 140.” Id. at 426-27.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he mere filling in of the fictitious name of the payee and the amount, might be enough to constitute forgery, even if another unauthorized person had signed the name of the purported drawer. The fact that the check was not indorsed or negotiated is not determinative.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The mere offer of a false instrument with fraudulent intent constitutes an uttering regardless of its successful consummation.””
    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.