Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 ALAAPP 683 - Wright v. State

Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
January 1981
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Oliver v. State · 30 Ala. App. 339 - Brown v. State · 16 Ala. App. 635 - Mitchell v. State · 28 Ala. App. 319 - Crow v. State · 39 Ala. App. 634 - Ex Parte Shirley

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

  1. ““. . . The question therefore arises as to whether, under the first indictment charging forgery of the face of the check, a variance arose when the proof in the first trial showed that the face of the check was genuine, but the endorsement of the payee’s name on the back had been forged.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ . . . if it is the intent to prosecute for forgery on back of an otherwise genuine instrument, then the indictment should be so drawn as to coincide with such intention. Otherwise, Defendant would not be sufficiently informed to enable him to prepare his defense.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"An indictment may be amended, with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described." (Emphasis added).”
    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.