Hindman v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that reliance on the validity of the cheek “must have been the efficient inducement which moved the party receiving it to part with something of value, including valuable services”
• interpreting a statute that not only required that a check be used to obtain money, or articles of value or services, but also specifically codifying that “past due” accounts were excluded
• “[Rjeliance upon the cheek must have been the efficient inducement which moved the party receiving it to part with something of value, including valuable services, relying upon its validity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Parker v. State
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1986-03-12· cited 19×
• State v. Cruz
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2009-10-27· cited 8×
• State v. Cruz
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 2011-09-14· cited 7×
• Miller v. State
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1982-05-19· cited 4×
• Walley v. State
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1984-10-31· cited 4×
• Durham v. State
  Court of Appeals of Mississippi· 2011-11-08· cited 3×
• State v. Cruz
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2010-01-25

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Kitchens v. Barlow
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1964-06-01· cited 15×
• Pollard v. State
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1971-02-22· cited 6×