Cunningham v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
272 F.2d 791 · 1959
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 1995 · most notably Corey v. United States (1962), Hall v. United States (1967)
23 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on Pereira v. United States · United States v. Sheridan · Milton v. United States · Greathouse v. United States · Hubsch v. United States
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Under the broad definition, forgery may be committed by the use of a fictitious name, with intent to defraud, so long as the instrument in question has a sufficient appearance of validity upon its face to enable it to be used to the prejudice of another, while under the narrow definition, the name signed to the instrument must purport to be the signature of some person other than the one actually signing it. Thus under the broad definition, forgery may be committed by signing the name of a fictitious person in the presence of the person defrauded, the other requisites for forgery under such definition being present, while under the narrow definition, such is not the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““When we reversed Greathouse’s conviction, it was because, as we viewed the facts, the defendant had merely misrepresented the extent of his authority but had not used a false name. While such conduct may well constitute a false pretense, subject to state prosecution, it is not a forgery.” Cunningham, supra, 272 F.2d at 793-794 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * we do not subscribe to a rule so narrow as to exonerate from liability as a forger under § 2314 one who signs a name other than his own with fraudulent intent.”
2 later decisions 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.