137 Cal. App. 1 - People v. Graves’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 27 Cal. 2d 478 - People v. Adamson (1946), People v. Megladdery (1940)
8 federal appellate · 34 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 People v. Coffey · People v. Davis · Commonwealth v. Webster · 55 Cal. App. 324 - People v. Smith · 115 Cal. App. 505 - People v. McClain
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘ This fact would be very important when joined with the fact that immediately following the payment on the compromise, appellant went to the city wherein the contractors maintained their headquarters and there became possessed of a large sum of money in currency, and acting under an assumed name disposed of it as hereinbefore shown. Notwithstanding the argument of counsel that contractors were used to handling large sums of money, the present commercial practice of transferring credit by check from bank to bank in the discharge of obligations seems to mark the withdrawal of such a large sum of currency as an unusual circumstance. We think the evidence was properly admitted as a circumstance in the unfolding of the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A study of cases shows a confusion in the minds of some courts between the admissibility of a circumstance in evidence and its weight when admitted. Of course, a circumstance may be so remote as to be of no practical use and should therefore be held inadmissible, but every case must be considered in its own right, and if extreme remoteness is not apparent the circumstance should be admitted and its weight left to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. McGinnis
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.