13 Va. App. 194 - Muhammad v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2012
17 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 In re Disbarment of Harris · Perini Corporation and Brown Brothers, Harriman and Company, Plaintiffs v. The First National Bank of Habersham County, Georgia, the Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Georgia and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, New York, Perini Corporation and Brown Brothers, Harriman and Company, Plaintiffs v. The First National Bank of Habersham County, Georgia, and the Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Georgia · Bullock v. Commonwealth · Hanbury v. Commonwealth · Bateman v. Commonwealth
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. The court concluded, The fact that a document may be so irregular that a bank would be justified in refusing payment, or that a transferee would be justified in not accepting the instrument, does not mean that the writing lacks apparent legal efficacy. A check which has been fraudulently written or altered in a manner that possibly will operate to the injury of another constitutes a forgery. Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Defendant's alteration of the travelers check gave it”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carbajal“`[n]o definition of forgery can be comprehensive enough to include all the crimes that may be committed by simple use of pen, paper and ink.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carbajal“that because no signature of a drawer appeared on the check, the check did not meet `the legal efficacy' test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carbajal
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.