Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 CALAPP5TH 533 - People v. Lowery

People v. Lowery’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on People v. Hill · 22 Cal. 3d 388 - Hale v. Morgan · Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc. · People v. Hines · 14 Cal. 4th 4 - Arnett v. Dal Cielo

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

  1. “makes clear that check forgery may be punishable as a felony if the value of the check exceeds $950. If, as Lowery argues, the value of a forged check is never more than the paper on which it is written, the language defining the $950 limit would be meaningless. This would violate the rule that '[c]ourts should give meaning to every word of a statute if possible, and should avoid a construction making any word surplusage.' ( Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4 , 22 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 , 923 P.2d 1 ].)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hile the written value of a forged check may be substantial evidence of its monetary worth, a defendant may be able to show an uncashed check was worth less than its written value - e.g., by presenting evidence that the check was unlikely to be cashed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[f]or example, a check may be so ineptly forged that even the most credulous clerk would refuse to honor it. A poorly forged check for a million dollars is unlikely to be cashed, and it makes little sense to assign the written value to such a check.”
    1 later decision 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.