Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 1980 · most notably State v. Carr (1975), Hunt v. State (1979)
25 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 State v. Wilson · Hunt v. State · People v. Peers · State v. Germain · Kimball v. Territory of Arizona
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘In several jurisdictions there are statutes directed against what is known as the “confidence game,” which can hardly be defined in a manner Avliich will cover all cases for the reason that schemes, the purposes of which is to SAvindle others “are as various as the mind of man is suggestive.” Generally speaking it is any swindling operation by means of which advantage is taken of the confidence reposed by the victim in the swindler. Any scheme whereby a swindler wins the confidence of his victim and swindles him out of his money by taking advantage of such confidence is a confidence game. A swindling operation does not, however, constitute a confidence game unless the element of confidence becomes a part of such swindling.’ ” See also, 35 O. J. S., False Pretenses, § 32.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““§ 43-2614. Confidence game — Bogus check. — Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain or attempt to obtain from any other person, any money, property, or valuable thing whatever, by means or by use of any trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation, or statement or pretense, or by any other means or instruments, or device, commonly called the ‘confidence game,’ or by means or by use of any false or bogus check, or by any other printed, written or engraved instrument, or spurious coin or metal, shall be guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than one [1] nor more than five [5] years. [P.C. 1901, § 489, 1913, § 532; R.C.1928, § 4790.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Theft defined. — Any person who: “4. Knowingly and designingly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal * * * is guilty of theft. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Freeman
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.