Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 Va. 18 - Gardner v. Commonwealth

Gardner v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

2 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2025

2 district · 13 state decisions

130200120102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)

Relies on United States v. Pavloski · 2 Va. App. 211 - Hairston v. Commonwealth · Bateman v. Commonwealth · Bernardini v. Central National Bank · Mitchell 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When the Commonwealth added the phrase “the property of George Gardner” to the indictment, it described, limited, and qualified what was necessary to be alleged, and the added language cannot, therefore, be treated as surplus-age. ... Here, when the Commonwealth alleged in the indictment that the money obtained by the defendant was the property of George Gardner but the evidence showed the money was the property of the bank, it proved a different offense, resulting in a fatal variance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The general rule is conceded that a depositor’s funds in a bank are unaffected by any unauthorized payment. If a bank pays out money to the holder of a check, upon which the name of its depositor is forged, it is simply no payment as between the bank and the depositor; the account between the bank and the depositor and the legal liability of the bank remain just the same as if the pretended payment had not been made. The pretended payment does not diminish the funds of the depositor.”
    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.