115 Ohio St. 340 - State v. Hearn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While the effect of an indorsement at times is to make different legal relation of parties, the instrument itself may still be within the definition and meaning of the word ‘check.’ “So far as the statute in question is concerned, the word as employed therein covers the word ‘check’ in all its aspects, as to date, amount, drawer, payee, and indorsements. It is as much a violation of the statute to forge a name, with intent to defraud, upon the back of a check, as upon the face thereof.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. State

2. ““The question presented by this record is whether or not there is a fatal variance where an indictment charges the forgery of a check with intent to defraud, and the uttering and publishing thereof with like intent, and the proof offered shows the check on its face to be genuine and the indorsement on the back a forgery, made with intent to defraud, and that such check was uttered and published with the same intent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. State