Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 Idaho 459 - State v. Baldwin

State v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2015

12 state decisions

5019491950196019701980199020002010decided

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 People v. Le Doux · O'Neal v. Rutt · State v. Conner · State v. Keller · 21 Okla. Crim. 373 - Morris 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * Sections 18-3601 and 18-3606, I.C., defining forgery, set forth a great many acts and means by which the crime may be committed. The commission of any one of the proscribed acts, with the intent to defraud, is sufficient. State v. McDermott, 52 Idaho 602 , 17 P.2d 343 ; State v. Allen, 53 Idaho 737 , 27 P.2d 482 . It is obvious that the commission of the crime of forgery cannot be limited to cases requiring ‘that the defendant forged or counterfeited the seal and handwriting of another.’ Further, the crime is committed by making, altering, etc., with the necessary intent as well as by uttering, publishing, passing, etc., with intent. If the prosecution proves the commission of the offense by either of these means, it is sufficient. The state is not required to prove both, as was requested by the appellant. State v. McDermott, supra.” 69 Idaho at 464 , 208 P.2d at 164 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. State v. Bishop

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.