Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 CAL 36 - People v. Eppinger

People v. Eppinger’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
11
states following
September 1965
most recently cited

65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 1965 · most notably 48 Cal. 2d 394 - People v. Marshall (1957), 58 Cal. 2d 713 - People v. Crosby (1962)

65 state decisions — followed in 11 states

13018941900191019201930194019501960decided

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. Elliott · State v. Hahn · People v. Sharp

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

  1. ““The city directory, showing therefrom that this name did not appear therein, was competent for the purpose of proving that there was no such firm as M. Howell & Co. (State v. Hahn, 38 La. Ann. 169 ), and it was also competent to prove by the police' officer that he had made inquiries for such a firm without success (People v. Sharp, 53 Mich. 523 , 19 N. W. 168 ). The character of the directory, and the extent of the inquiries, might affect the weight, but not the competency, of the evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The essence of the offense created by the provisions of section 476 is the making, with an intent to defraud another, of an obligation of some ‘bank, corporation, copartnership or individual,’ when in fact there is no such obligor in existence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The testimony of the teller in the bank on which the check was drawn that no firm by the name of M. Howell & Co. kept or had any account in his books was prima facie evidence of the fictitious character of the 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.