Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 Cal. App. 41 - People v. Ferguson

134 Cal. App. 41 - People v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2002 · most notably Cox v. State of Louisiana (1965), 12 Cal. 2d 501 - Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc. (1939)

5 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

10019331940195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Jackson · People v. O'Brien · Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Duffill · Ward v. Waterman · People v. Wasservogle

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

  1. “It is true generally that where the act is knowingly and willfully done the act imports the intent. People v. O’Brien, . . 31 P. 45 , which case we had recent occasion to consider; see People v. A. L. Ferguson, 18 P.2d 741 . However, it occurs to us that a different situation is here presented. The regulation which has not been complied with is malum prohibitum and not malum in se. It covers one of the most complicated phases of modern commercial life. The statute can be read strictly or liberally, according to the type of mind applied to it. . The case of changing a public record, as in the O'Brien Case or of the possession of metal knuckles as in the A. L. Ferguson Case, were instances of knowingly doing that which the law prohibits. In such instances the act imputes the intent. In the instant circumstance the act does not impute intent.”
    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.