Hanbury v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 1998 · most notably Brubaker v. City of Richmond (1991), 14 Va. App. 988 - Campbell v. Commonwealth (1992)
12 federal appellate · 31 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 King v. County of Arlington · Gordon v. Commonwealth · City of Lynchburg v. Dominion Theatres, Inc. · Allen v. City of Norfolk · Terry 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]orgery is the false making or material alteration, with the intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy. It makes no difference how the writing may be made, whether by handwriting, printing, steel engraving, lithographing, rubber stamp, or what not. It simply is the making of a writing with intent to defraud, and which writing, if it were genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n instrument is one of legal efficacy, within the rules relating to forgery, where by any possibility it may operate to the injury of another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“he shall be punished as therein provided. We said that the rights of the City were prejudiced by the use of the forged stamp and”
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.