State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2018
4 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 Jackson v. Virginia · 419 So. 2d 858 - State v. Raymo · 421 So. 2d 887 - State v. Washington · 457 So. 2d 651 - State v. Tomlinson · 450 So. 2d 380 - State v. Tomlinson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. It shall be unlawful to forge, with intent to defraud, any signature to, or any part of, any writing purporting to have legal efficacy. B. Issuing, transferring, or possessing with intent to defraud, a forged writing, known by the offender to be a forged writing, shall also constitute a violation of the provisions of this Section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dufrene
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.