State v. Timmerman’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1983
3 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 People v. Skidmore · State v. Faggard · State v. Samaha · State v. Jenson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“«* * * (i) There must have been false or fraudulent representations or pretenses. (2) The representations must have been made knowingly and designedly. (3) There must have been a concurring intent to cheat or defraud the person to whom the false or fraudulent representations or pretenses were made. (4) Something of value must have been obtained because of the * * * pretenses. And (5) the party to whom the false * * * pretenses were made must have parted with something of value in reliance upon the * * * pretenses, believing them to be true.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pixton v. Dunn“`Actual ownership' of the money or goods by the person upon whom the cheat is practiced is not essential. It is sufficient if he had lawful possession and dominion of the same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.