Wright v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 310 · 1949
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2008 · most notably Moskal v. United States (1990), Gilbert v. United States (1962)
31 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 United States v. Sheridan · Milton v. United States · The United States v. Thomas Staats Junior · United States v. John a Davis B · Williams v. Territory of Arizona
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no definition of either of the terms, ‘falsely made’ or ‘forged,’ in the National Stolen Property Act. They are to be found in many other Federal, forgery statutes where, likewise, they are not specifically defined. It seems a reasonable assumption that Congress intended them to have their common, ordinary meaning in all such statutes including the one now under consideration. The word ‘forgery’ is commonly defined as the false making or materially altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing, which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, appellant drew the checks on an existent bank and signed them in his own true name. There was nothing fictitious about them. They were exactly what they purported to be. namely, written requests by appellant to the drawee bank to pay a specified sum of money to a third person or to his order. It may well be said that, by implication, they falsely represented that appellant had sufficient funds in the drawee bank to pay them upon their presentation, and the facts will support an assumption that he intended to use them to defraud, but that does not justify classifying the checks as “falsely made” or “forgedf.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Schoelerman““Whoever, with unlawful or fraudulent intent, transports in interstate or foreign commerce any falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities, knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited; * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.