Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 ALAAPP 163 - Tucker v. State

Tucker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
September 2002
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2002

7 state decisions

4019661970198019902000decided

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 Commonwealth v. Costello · 19 Ala. App. 484 - Harris v. State · State v. Wheeler · Esco v. State · Williams 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"`The law is well settled that the signing of a fictitious name to an instrument with fraudulent intent constitutes forgery. 8 Am. Eng. Enc. of Law 457; Williams v. State , 126 Ala. 50 , 28 So. 632 [(1900)]. And, if such had been the charge here, it would then have become a question of fact as to fraud in identity of the person, as was the case in State v. Wheeler , 20 Or. 192 , 25 P. 394 , 10 L.R.A. 779 , 23 Am.St.Rep. 119 [(1890)]; Rex v. Sheppard , 1 Leach C.C. 226 [(1781)]; Rex v. Whiley , 2 Leach CC. 983[()]; Commonwealth v. Costello , 120 Mass. 358 [(1876)]. But in this case the defendant by signing one of the names by which he was known and called did not sign the name of a fictitious person, but his own. "It is not forgery when the offense is not the assumption of the name of a supposed third person, but the adoption of an alias by the party charged." Whar. Crim. Law, 1092. All of the foregoing cases recognize the distinction between an instrument signed in an assumed name and passed by the person signing it as his own act and an instrument signed in a fictitious name and passed by the party signing it fraudulently concealing his identity as being the signer.'"”
    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.