Legal Opinion

Polisher v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 2, 1971No. 431, September Term, 1970PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOrth, J.

The prosecutions in this case arose because money was stolen. It was not taken by violence, but the means used were more effective than if the victims were robbed at gun point, because they were persuaded, in some cases, time and time again, to come back to the thieves so more money could be obtained. Those bilked were induced to part not only with the possession of their money but with the title to it as well. Therefore the crime was what is commonly called “false pretenses.” 1

The swindles involved the repair of automobiles. 2 In connection therewith Brunswick Exchange, Inc. (Brunswick),…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  2. Boone v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. State v. ZimmermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
  4. Simmons v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
  5. Wentz v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1930

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Andresen v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Andresen v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  3. Fraidin v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  4. Avery v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972
  5. United States v. Martin R. KucikCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API