State v. Cowley’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2017
20 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 Difronzo v. United States · 232 Cal. App. 2d 153 - Buck v. Superior Court · People v. Nesseth · 8 Smith & H. 177 - Girdley v. State · Territory of New Mexico v. Gutierrez
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t appears to be clear from the language of the statute that the unauthorized alteration of a genuine instrument, of the kind contemplated by the statute, with the requisite fraudulent intent, is forgery....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carbajal“Forgery consists of: A. falsely making or altering any signature to, or any part of, any writing purporting to have any legal efficacy with intent to injure or defraud[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith“The phrase `legal efficacy' refers to the fact that the instrument on its face could be made the foundation of some liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carbajal
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.