Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 CAL 66 - People v. Brown

People v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
6
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably 27 Cal. 3d 303 - People v. Thompson (1980), 27 Cal. 4th 49 - People v. Avery (2002)

41 state decisions

6018941900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 State v. South · State v. Davis · State v. Homes · People v. Juarez · State v. Slingerland

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

  1. ““Upon the foregoing state of facts the court gave the jury the following instruction: ‘I think it is not necessary to say very much to yon in this case. I may say, generally, that I think counsel for the defense here stated to yon in this argument very fairly the principles of law governing this case, except in one particular. In defining to yon the crime of grand larceny he says it is essential that the taking of it must be felonious. That is true; the taking with the intent to deprive the owner of it; but he adds the conclusion that you must find that the taker intended to deprive him of it permanently. I do not think that is the law. I think in this case, for example, if the defendant took this byciele, we will say for the purpose of riding twenty-five miles, for the purpose of enabling him to get away, and then left it for another to get it, and intended to do nothing else except to help himself away for a certain distance, it would be larceny, just as much as though he intended to take it all the while. A man may take a horse, for instance, not with the intent to convert it wholly and permanently to his own use, but to ride it to a certain distance, for a certain purpose he may have, and then leave it. He converts it to that extent to his own use and purpose feloniously. ’ “This instruction is erroneous, and demands a reversal of the judgment. If the boy’s story be true he is not guilty of larceny in taking the machine; yet, under the instruction of the court, the words ”
    2 later decisions 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.