469 So. 2d 699 - Benefield v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2015
6 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 Orr v. State · Brown v. State · 418 So. 2d 967 - Andersen v. State · 67 Ill. App. 2d 33 - People v. Kamsler · 389 So. 2d 1169 - Cottonreeder 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]romises performance which the defendant does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed. Failure to perform, standing alone, however, is not proof that the defendant did not intend to perform.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A person commits the crime of theft of property if he: "... "(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his property."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““More than mere failure to perform a promise is required to support an inference of deceptive intent. Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-8-l(l)(f). A false promise must be distinguished from a broken promise. “ ‘A false promise is to be distinguished from a broken promise, i.e., a promise which the promisor originally intends to keep but which he later decides to break. One who makes a false promise can be properly said to be guilty of fraud; but one who breaks a promise he meant to keep, though not altogether admirable, cannot properly be termed fraudulent.’ W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law 657, n. 17 (1972). “Annot., 19 A.L.R.4th 959 , 964 (1983). “ ‘[A] present intent not to comply with a promise or a statement as to a future act can be the basis of the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses.’ In such prosecutions it is essential to establish that there was ‘an intent at the time the representation was made not to comply with a promise or statement as to a future act and to guard against the conviction of persons who have been guilty of no more than a breach of contract.’ 19 A.L.R.4th at 964.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Houston 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.