McCormick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2005
15 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 Hinshaw v. State · Bruce v. State · Green v. State · Appelby v. State · Borton 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““CHARLES G. DUVALL being duly sworn upon his oath says that DANIEL FRANKLIN MeCOR-MICK on or about the 30th day of MAY'A.D., 1953, at said County and State as affiant verily believes did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently, by color and aid of a check on the Chrisney State Bank, Chrisney, Indiana, for the payment of money in the words and figures, following: Chrisney State Bank—Chrisey, Indiana 71-1 863 Evansville? Indiana MAY 30 19 53 NO.__ THE NATIONAL BANE OE EVANSVILLE CHRISEY STATE BANK ** CHRISEY INDIANA PAY TO THE ORDER OF West Side Auto Sales.... $125.00 One Hundard Twenty Five—No/100 DOLLARS West Side Offiee s/ Dan McCormick Reverse side of check s/ West Side Auto Sales Norman L. Bartlett did then and there obtain from Norman L. Bartlett doing business as West Side Auto Sales, credit in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($125.00) on his account with said Norman L. Bartlett, doing business as West Side Auto Sales, which was then and there delivered to said Daniel Franklin McCormick in exchange for said check, when he, the said Daniel Franklin McCormick, maker of said check well knowing at the time of making, uttering to the order of the said Norman L. Bartlett, doing business as West Side Auto Sales, and delivering of said false and fraudulent check to the said Norman L. Bartlett, doing business as West Side Auto Sales, that the maker and drawer of said check did not then and there have sufficient funds in or credit with said bank for the. payment o”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCormick v. State““In Borton v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 679 , 106 N. E. 2d 392 , we pointed out that the 1927 Act was enacted for the purpose of creating a new and distinct offense. We said that the 1927 Act states all of the elements of the offense and pointed out that the offense defined by the 1927 Act ‘is not for executing a check, when there are insufficient funds in the bank to pay it. The offense is for executing a check ‘knowing at the time’ of such execution that the maker ‘has not sufficient funds in or credit with such bank . . . for the payment of such check, ... in full upon its presentation ....’””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woodall 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.