2004 UT App 467 - State v. Jensen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4th Cir.1948) (finding that it was not forgery for the defendant to issue a check in his own name on a bank in which he had no funds, despite the defendant's intent to defraud). Additionally, in addressing elements of forgery similar to those articulated in our forgery statute, other states have held that one who signs his own name, purporting to act with the authority of another, is not guilty of forgery. For example, the Texas Court of Appeals has held that”

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

2. “- Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex.1976). In Nobles, the court found that the defendant, in signing his own name to the corporation's deed under the false power of an officer of the corporation, did not commit forgery. See id. at 925-26 . The court noted that while the defendant”

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

3. “'[Tlhe state must show that the defendant not only used the name of another, but must also show that [she] did so without any authority to do so.'”

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