Spencer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Utterback v. State (1974), Myers v. State (1960)
32 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 Hickory v. United States · City of Teree Haute v. Hudnut · City of Fort Wayne v. Coombs · Hawkins v. State · Woods v. State
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * One need not be an expert to give his opinion as to the genuineness of the handwriting of a person if he is familiar with such person’s handwriting and has seen the person write. “Anyone who is familiar with a person’s writing from experience, having seen him write, or having carried on correspondence with him or from the opportunities of having frequently •handled ■ and observed the person’s handwriting, is competent as a non-expert to give an opinion as to the genuineness of his signature, or handwriting. “ ‘So often does the subject of expert qualifications in handwriting come before the Courts that this subject is ordinarily thought of as exclusively one for experts. But a little reflection on every day’s practice will demonstrate this error of thought. Where the witness is sufficiently qualified as to knowledge, i. e. where he has seen the person write or the like * * *, no dispute is ever raised as to his experiential competency. Proper familiarity with the standard of comparison is all that is asked for, and no special skill in judging of writings is required. It is accepted law that the general experience of the ordinary person is sufficient, so far as experiential competency goes.’ Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Edition Vol. II, § 570, p. 668 * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Eubanks““We do not approve of the practice of permitting the jury to mingle freely with the spectators and those participating in the trial during the trial, under the conditions stated. However, it is incumbent upon the appellant to make prompt objections to such practice and to request that remedial measures be taken by the court. The appellant may not wait until the outcome of the case is known before making an objection.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Myers v. State
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.