Hoffer v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2022
2 district · 21 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 Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Houck · Dixon v. Kaufman · Commonwealth v. Foster · Horvath v. National Mortgage Co. · State v. Flanders
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is contended that the mineral deed constitutes a forgery and is, therefore, void for any purpose. As authority for that contention reference is made to the note in 14 A.L. R. at p. 316 following the case of Austin v. State of Tennessee, 143 Tenn. 300 , 228 S.W. 60 [ 14 A.L.R. 311 ], and also the note in 56 A.L.R. 582 , dealing with the procurement of a signature by fraud as a forgery. Particular reference is made to the case of Horvath v. National Mortgage Company, 238 Mich. 354 , 213 N.W. 202 , 56 A.L.R. 578 . The annotation in 14 A.L.R. 316 states: “ ‘While the courts are not in entire accord on the question, in a majority of the cases it is held that fraudulently procuring a genuine signature to an instrument does not constitute forgery. Wells v. State, 89 Ga. 788 , 15 S.E. 679 ; People v. Pfeiffer, 243 Ill. 200 , 90 N.E. 680 , 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 138, 17 Ann.Cas. 703; State v. Corfield, 46 Kan. 207 , 26 P. 498 ; Johnson v. State, 87 Miss. 502 , 39 So. 692 ; State v. Mitten, 36 Mont. 376 , 92 P. 969 ; State v. Flanders, 38 N.H. 324 ; People v. Underhill, 142 N.Y. 38 , 36 N.E. 1049 , reversing 75 Hun 329 , 26 N.Y.S. 1030 ; Com. v. Sankey, 22 Pa. 390 , 60 Am.Dec. 91; Hill v. State, 1 Yerg. 76 ( 9 Tenn. 76 ), 24 Am.Dec. 441.’ (Emphasis supplied.) “It is also stated: “ ‘In some jurisdictions the view is taken that the procuring of a genuine signature to an instrument by fraudulent representations constitutes forgery. State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368 ; Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 3”
3 later decisions 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.