129 Cal. App. 300 - People v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

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

1. ““Whether or -not the law would apply to a museum keeper is outside of this case, for the reason that there is no evidence that puts appellant in the category of a museum keeper. It may well be added, however, that the legality of statutes is not measured by extreme or unlikely situations. (United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. (U.S.) 482 [ 19 L.Ed. 278 ]; In re Reineger, 184 Cal. 97, at p. 104 [ 193 P. 81 ].) When the statute is read as a whole it seems clear that the legislature meant to enact no halfway measure, for it is therein provided that ‘blackjacks, slung-shots, billies, sand-clubs, sandbags and metal knuckles are hereby declared to be nuisances and shall be subject to confiscation and summary destruction whenever found within this state. ’ It is evident to us that the effective prohibition of the criminal use of weapons of this sort depends upon the right to prohibit possession thereof, and that the law does not intend to and does not in fact make any exception of heirlooms, curios or keepsakes of individuals. As to museum keepers we have already said we make no expression of opinion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 Cal. App. 2d 26 - People v. Crenshaw