Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 Va. 174 - Campbell v. Commonwealth

Campbell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably 39 Va. App. 670 - Harris v. Commonwealth (2003), Tvardek v. Powhatan Vill. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. (2016)

50 state decisions

220199320002010decided

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 Green v. United States · Scalza v. United States · In re Disbarment of Harris · Hart v. Commonwealth · 14 Va. App. 988 - Campbell 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"(1) Any person who shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit any public record, or any certificate, return, or attestation of any clerk of a court, public register, notary public, township clerk, or any other public officer, in relation to any matter wherein such certificate, return, or attestation may be received as legal proof, or any charter, deed, will, testament, bond, writing obligatory, letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange, promissory note, or any order, acquittance of discharge for money or other property, or any waiver, release, claim or demand, or any acceptance of a bill of exchange, or indorsement, or assignment of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or any accountable receipt for money, goods, or other property, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 14 years.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““At Common Law the Counterfeiting a Matter of Record is Forgery; for since the Law gives the highest Credit to all Records, it cannot but be of the utmost ill Consequence to the Publik to have them either forged or falsified.” 2 Matthew Bacon, Abridgment (1786). The common-law crime of forgery of public records, a capital offense in England, was augmented by statutes punishing the lesser offense of forgery of certain private documents. See, e.g., An Act Concerning Counterfeit Letters or Privy Tokens to Receive Money or Goods in Others Men’s Names, 1541-42, 33 Hen. VIII, ch. 1 (Eng.). Unlike the crime of forgery of public records in which “ill Consequence to the Publik” was conclusively presumed, and unlike the common-law crime of forgery of private papers in which proof of potential harm or prejudice to another Ayas required, conviction of the several statutory offenses generally required proof of actual harm or prejudice to the rights of another person. See 1 Hawkins at 263 n. 1; 2 Bacon at .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]f any person forge any writing ... to the prejudice of another's right ..., [that person] shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.”
    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.