Gresham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 1983
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 8 Md. App. 522 - Bieber v. State · Gennaitte v. State · 85 Wis. 2d 558 - Little v. State · 153 Ind. App. 590 - McHaney v. State · Smith v. State
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the trial court erred in refusing Gresham’s tendered Instruction No. 7 that knowledge on the part of the defendant that the check was forged is an essential element of the offense; (2) whether the court erred in refusing Gresham’s tendered Instruction No. 4 relating to circumstantial evidence; and (3) whether the court erred in denying Gresham’s motion for a directed verdict on the forgery charge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gresham v. State““You are instructed that to sustain a conviction for Forgery, the State must prove that the defendant had knowledge that the instrument was forged. “If the State fails to prove that defendant had knowledge that the check was forged, you must acquit the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gresham v. State
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.