Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 260 N.J. Super. 227 - State v. Modell

260 N.J. Super. 227 - State v. Modell’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2015

12 state decisions

60199220002010decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Oregon v. Kennedy · Illinois v. Somerville

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It was on August 13, 1984 — the date of deposit — when defendant affirmatively dealt with the property obtained as his own. He should not be allowed to benefit from the delay caused by his failure to remit the funds between the time the funds were received until they were deposited into his account on August 13, 1984. It is unclear where the funds were between the date they were mailed and the date they were deposited in defendant's account. The action taken by defendant that objectively and clearly demonstrated misapplication of the funds and the resultant substantial risk of loss was the deposit of the funds into his own account on August 13, 1984. Defendant's action on that date constituted evidence of an element of the crime and was the cornerstone of the criminal conduct supporting his conviction. Prosecution prior to that occurrence may have been deemed precipitous. [ Ibid. ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the benefit derived was that of the face amount of the funds used and not merely the value of the use of the funds for the period of time they were inappropriately used.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`speculate as to [the defendant's] intent from the time he received the check to the time he deposited it and whether his intent was manifested and enforced.'”
    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.