Mayes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Beed v. State (1980), Perry v. State (1982)
38 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · People v. Munroe · Hinton v. State · Sims v. State · State v. Phillips
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“264 Ark. at 293 , 571 S.W.2d at 426 . Under the [Arkansas] statute, one forges a written instrument, if with purpose to defraud he draws, makes, completes, counterfeits, possesses or utters a written instrument that purports to be or is calculated to become or to represent if completed, the act of a person who did not authorize the act. Id. at 290 , 571 S.W.2d at 424 (emphasis added). The court clearly states that a finding of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of the statute against forgery is to protect society against the fabrication, falsification and the uttering of instruments which might be acted upon as being genuine. The law should protect, in this respect, the members of the community who may be ignorant or gullible as well as those who are cautious and aware of the legal requirements of a genuine instrument. An instrument is not the subject matter of forgery only where it is so defective on its face that, as a matter of law, it is not capable of defrauding anyone. The instrument which was uttered by defendant in this case might on its face have easily defrauded someone. In fact, it would have been legally enforceable in its incomplete state if, as it represented, there was in fact an underlying debt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“create a valid and legally enforceable obligation in order to constitute the making of it a forgery.... It is sufficient that it might possibly deceive another and was prepared with intent to deceive and defraud another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.