78 N.J. Super. 203 - State v. Turetsky’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1996
8 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. Fiorello · 69 N.J. Super. 479 - State v. Chiarello · State v. Chiarello · 77 N.J. Super. 81 - State v. Sullivan · 47 N.J. Super. 172 - State v. Samurine
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.
“. . . So, too, if the jury believed that this $1,000 check was delivered, either postdated or on the date appearing on its face, solely as payment on account of a larger past due obligation and no other consideration passed from the payee to the makers as a result of the delivery of the check, then the element of intent to defraud, essential to the proof of the statutory offense, would have been lacking and the defendants would have been entitled to an acquittal. State v. Riccardo, 32 N. J. Super. 89, 94-95 (App. Div. 1954). As we said in Riccardo: “. . . while the mere fact that a check is given for a past consideration does not ipso facto negative the element of fraud, it is a controlling circumstance when no other element of fraud exists.” A check given for a past consideration -might still be tainted with an intent to defraud, as where the maker of the check obtains an extension of credit or relief from threatened legal action. State v. Riccardo, supra at p. 94.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““is to come forward with some substantial evidence tending to negate an intent to defraud, unless such evidence appears on the State’s case, at peril of risking a finding of guilt by the jury on all of the elements of the crime, including intent to defraud. If the defendant fails to do so, the judge may tell the jury that it has the right, from the making, drawing, uttering or delivering of a check, draft or order as stated in section [N. J. S.] 2A 111-15, to infer that it was done with intent to defraud.” State v. Turetsky, swpra, 78 N. J. Super., at p. 217.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pollack
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.