Moses v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Uttering is the offering of a forged instrument, knowing it to be such, with a representation that it is genuine, and with an intent to defraud. It is not essential that the accused should have been implicated in the forgery, that the instrument be accepted as genuine, or that anyone be actually prejudiced by it.’ 37 C. J. S., Forgery § 37, p. 57.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 Ind. App. 590 - McHaney v. State · 156 Ind. App. 692 - Reid v. State

2. ““Whoever * * * utters or publishes as true any such instrument or matter, knowing the same to be false, defaced, altered, forged, counterfeited, falsely printed or photographed, with intent to defraud any person, * * * shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the state prison not less than two [2] years nor more than fourteen [14] years, and fined not less than ten dollars [$10.00] nor more than one thousand dollars [$1,000].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 Ind. App. 590 - McHaney v. State

3. ““While it is true that there is no evidence that the appellant himself forged or caused to be forged the check and the letter, such proof is not necessary to a charge of uttering a forged instrument. It is immaterial who wrote the check or whether the appellant knew who wrote it. Dullen v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 212 , 233 N.E.2d 478 .” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 Ind. App. 692 - Reid v. State