People v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 59 Cal. 2d 503 - People v. Ketchel (1963), 1 Cal. 4th 56 - People v. Superior Court (Marks) (1991)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 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. Farrington · People v. Witt · People v. Wong Loung · People v. Manriquez · People v. Bollinger
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arises as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must order a jury to be impaneled from the jurors summoned and returned for the term, or who may be summoned by direction of the court from the body of the county in cases where sufficient jurors duly summoned have not appeared. “The trial of the indictment or information or the pronouncing of judgment, as the case may be, must be suspended until the question of insanity is determined by the verdict of the jury.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, the question whether a `doubt' has arisen as to the sanity of the defendant is for the determination of the judge of the trial court. ( People v. Keyes, 178 Cal. 794, 802 [ 175 P. 6 ]; People v. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425, 428 [ 58 P. 918 ]; People v. Fountain, 170 Cal. 460, 467 [ 150 P. 341 ]; People v. West, 25 Cal. App. 369 [ 143 P. 793 ].) And it is only where, as a matter of law, a `doubt' may be said to appear, or where there has been an abuse of the discretion that is vested in the trial judge, in the determination of the question, that the conclusion of the latter properly may be disturbed on appeal therefrom. ( People v. Gilberg, 197 Cal. 306, 317 [ 240 P. 1000 ]; People v. Moriarity, 61 Cal. App. 223 [ 214 P. 485 ]; People v. Rosner, 78 Cal. App. 497 [ 248 P. 683 ]; People v. Kirby, 15 Cal. App. 264 [ 114 P. 794 ]; People v. Little, 68 Cal. App. 674 [ 230 P. 178 ]; People v. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425 [ 58 P. 918 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`Indeed, in the bloody reign of Henry the Eighth, a statute was made, which enacted that if a person being compos mentis (of sane mind) should commit high treason, and after fall into madness, he might be tried in his absence, and should suffer death, as if he were of perfect memory. But this savage and inhuman law was repealed by the statute 1 and 2 P. and M., c. 10.'”
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.