State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen an insufficient funds check is given in payment of a preexisting obligation it is not likely that the maker had an intent to defraud, although it is legally possible that he did have such an intent. Therefore, we hold that to the extent that I.C. § 18-3106(d) presumes an intent to defraud from the giving of an insufficient fund check in payment of a preexisting obligation that presumption is not based upon common experience, there being an insufficient relationship “between the fact proved and the ultimate fact to be presumed. ” State v. Grimmett, supra. We cannot say that “the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact, ” Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 57 (1969), and therefore the presumption under the circumstances of this case is arbitrary, irrational and therefore unconstitutional. As stated in Tot v. United States, supra: “[W]here the inference is so strained as not to have a reasonable relation to the circumstances of life as we know them it is not competent for the legislature to create it as a rule governing the procedure of courts.” 319 U.S. 468 , 63 S.Ct. 1245 . ( 543 P.2d at 1174-1175 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Dwyer

2. “'(d) As against the maker or drawer thereof, the making, drawing, uttering or delivering of such check, draft or order as aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of no funds or insufficient funds***”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Doane