7 Md. App. 457 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Forgery has been defined as a false making or material alteration, with intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability. Reddick v. State, 219 Md. 95 , and authorities cited at page 98. More succinctly, forgery is the fraudulent making of a false writing having apparent legal significance. Nelson v. State, 224 Md. 374 . It is thus clear that one of the essential elements of forgery is a writing in such form as to be apparently of some legal efficacy and hence capable of defrauding or deceiving.” (Footnote omitted). (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 181 Ind. App. 213 - Malcomson v. State · 20 Md. App. 209 - Harding v. Ja Laur Corp.

2. ““By common definition forgery is false making, Reddick v. State, supra, and as used in Section 44, we think the terms ‘falsely make’ and ‘forge’ are synonymous, both describing a spurious or fictitious making relating to the genuineness of execution of an instrument. See Marteney v. United States, 216 F. 2d 760, 763 (10th Cir.). Similarly, the term ‘counterfeit’ in common parlance signifies the fabrication of a false image or representation; counterfeiting an instrument means falsely making it .... It was noted in Arnold v. Cost, supra, that ‘the counterfeiting of any writing with a fraudulent intent whereby another may be prejudiced, is forgery at common law.’ The words ‘forged’ and ‘counterfeited’ as used in a statute creating the offense of passing ‘forged, counterfeited or falsely altered instruments’ have been held to be synonymous. Hobbs v. State, 9 Mo. 855 . And in Greathouse v. United States, 170 F. 2d 512 (4th. Cir.), it was held that under the National Stolen Property Act which penalizes the transportation of ‘falsely made, forged, altered or counterfeited securities’ the quoted words were ejusdem generis and usually employed to denounce the crime of forgery. In light of these principles, and bearing in mind that as originally enacted in 1799, Section 44 was -entitled ‘An act for the more effectual preventing of forgery,’ we think the terms ‘falsely make, forge or counterfeit,’ as used in the Section, are virtually synonymous and were collectively intended to proscr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 37 Md. App. 450 - Reese v. State

3. “Both at common law and in the highest courts of the several states of the Union, it has uniformly been held that, in order to be the subject of forgery, the instrument upon its face must, if it were genuine, be of some apparent legal efficacy for injury to another, and if, on its face, it is utterly valueless and of no binding force or effect for any purpose of harm, liability, or injury to any one, it cannot be the subject of forgery, (emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 181 Ind. App. 213 - Malcomson v. State