People v. Maughs’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently July 1988 · most notably Durham v. United States (1954), 62 Cal. 2d 368 - In Re Lopez (1965)
10 federal appellate · 98 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. Cronin · People v. Sanchez · State v. Partlow · People v. Devine · People v. Newcomer
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * we think the time has come to say that in all future cases which shall arise, and where, after this warning, this instruction shall be given, this court will hold the giving of it to be so prejudicial to the rights of a defendant, secured to him by our Constitution and laws, as to call for the reversal of any judgment which may be rendered against him.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Nor is it any answer to this objection that the court elsewhere gave a correct instruction upon the subject. The result served but to confuse the jury and to render it impossible to determine whether in their deliberations they followed the law as correctly or as incorrectly set before them. (People v. Campbell, 30 Cal. 312 ; People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65 ; People v. Wong Ah Ngow, 54 Cal. 151 , [ 35 Am.Rep. 69 ]; People v. Messersmith, 57 Cal. 575 ; People v. Thomson, 92 Cal. 506 , [ 28 P. 589 ] ; People v. Pearne, 118 Cal. 154 , [ 50 P. 376 ].)””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Reese““It is only necessary that the act of killing be preceded by and the result of a concurrence of will. . . . ,” etc.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MacIas v. State
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.