Suits v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “"It is a defense under subsection (a) if a person who: (1) has an account with a credit institution but does not have sufficient funds in that account; and (2) issues or delivers a check, draft, or order for payment on that credit institution; pays the payee or holder the amount due, together with protest fees and any service fee or charge, which may not exceed the greater of fifteen dollars ($15) or five percent (5%) (but not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250)) of the amount due, that may be charged by the payee or holder, within ten (10) days after the date of mailing by the payee or holder of notice to the person that the check, draft, or order has not been paid by the credit institution. Notice sent in the manner set forth in IC 28-2-8-1(c) constitutes notice to the person that the check, draft, or order has not been paid by the credit institution. The payee or holder of a check, draft, or order that has been dishonored incurs no civil or criminal liability for sending notice under this subsection."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kimberling v. State · Commercial & Medical Accounts Services, Inc. v. MacKintosh

2. “"A construction which includes notice as part of the defense would place control of the availability of the defense in the hands of the payee or holder. The holder or payee could totally deprive a defendant of the defense of payment by intentionally not mailing notice of nonpayment and thereby nullifying the legislature's intent that such a defense can and should exist. Thus, the only interpretation that gives viability to the legislature's expressed intent that a defense shall exist is the construction that the defense is timely payment after the state has proven the element of mailing notice of nonpayment."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kimberling v. State · Kimberling v. State

3. “1) The Majority has re-written the statute and invaded the legislature's right to define societial conduct which constitutes a crime. 2) The Indiana Legislature made notice and payment a defense-not an element of check deception. 8) Assuming arguendo that the Majority is correct in its rationale that notice is an element of the offense of check deception and not a defense as urged by the Indiana Legislature, Kimber-ling had actual notice and statutory notice. The statute only defines one type of notice that will constitute notice. Other types of notice are not excluded by the statute. 4) After agreeing with Mr. Kaspar that he would adhere to a payment schedule to repay check number 1134 and after receiving a bank statement showing that check 1134 had been returned for insufficient funds, and after being personally threatened that action would be taken against him if he did not make check 1134 good as he had promised, it is difficult for me to conclude that Kimberling did not have notice that his check had been returned for insufficient funds. If a precise statement in a letter as to the amount and check number is necessary before check deception can be prosecuted then for all practical purposes, Indiana does not have a check deception statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kimberling v. State