Santolini v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2011
14 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.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It does not seem from the authorities that it is necessary either in any indictment for forgery, or for uttering forged paper, or for passing the same, to set out any indorsements thereon,- to show the Instrument to be of apparent -legal efficacy;-it'is sufficient to- charge that, it is.a. forged writing, was uttered or passed with knowledge of the forgery, and with intent'to defraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. McDonald
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.