505 So. 2d 783 - State v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2003
7 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 · State v. Sepulvado · 433 So. 2d 104 - State v. Square · 436 So. 2d 471 - State v. Sutton · 445 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Wright
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendants contend that the act of endorsing the checks with the name of the fictitious payees constituted the use of an alias and, as such, did not constitute a false making within the meaning of the forgery statute. The simple use of a fictitious payee or an alias alone did not constitute the crime of forgery. The mere use of a false or fictitious name may constitute false pretenses, but so long as the writing purports to be the act of the person issuing it and of no other, there is no forgery. State v. Celestine, 439 So.2d 426 (La.1983); State v. Devenow, 253 La. 796 , 220 So.2d 78 (1969); State v. Mann, 250 La. 1086 , 202 So.2d 259 (1969); State v. Wilson, 168 La. 932 , 123 So. 624 (1929). The forgeries committed by [the defendants] were not accomplished by the mere act of endorsing the checks with the names of the fictitious payees. In signing the fictitious endorsements, the defendants never represented those endorsements to be the act of any person other than themselves.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Forgery is the false making or altering, with intent to defraud, of any signature to, or any part of, any writing purporting to have legal efficacy. Issuing or transferring, with intent to defraud, a forged writing, known by the offender to be a forged writing, shall also constitute forgery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“endorsed the various checks with the names of the fictitious payees and negotiated the checks, receiving the proceeds.”
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.