122 Cal. App. 2d 281 - People v. Gorgol’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably 59 Cal. 2d 503 - People v. Ketchel (1963), 47 Cal. 3d 983 - People v. Edelbacher (1989)
63 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 28 Cal. 2d 306 - People v. Peete · 23 Cal. 2d 600 - Loper v. Morrison · 109 Cal. App. 2d 524 - People v. Burns · People v. Beltran · 31 Cal. 2d 489 - Luthringer v. Moore
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.
“. . For example, it may be shown that prior to the date of the alleged crime the defendant was without money and immediately thereafter he had a large amount of money. (Citations.) Another exception appears in People v. Richards, 74 Cal.App.2d 279 [ 168 P.2d 435 ], where evidence was held admissible to show that prior to the robbery the defendant had made a down payment on an automobile and was required to make subsequent payments on it, that he was not working and had no finances with which to meet the obligation. \ . .it was for the jury to determine whether his pecuniary situation tended to directly connect him with the commission of the crime or to disclose a motive for its commission.’ (P. 290.) The court stated further (p. 289): ‘As stated by the trial court, “if it has a tendency to prove that on the 28th day of February (the date of the robbery) the defendant is in need of money, and it is a circumstance which may or may not have any weight or may or may not have any particular significance. But I think it is admissible as a circumstance.” ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.