Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 CALAPP2D 38 - People v. Ogg

People v. Ogg’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably 43 Cal. 3d 333 - People v. Bloyd (1987), 29 Cal. 3d 904 - People v. Redmond (1981)

53 state decisions

3401958196019701980199020002010decided

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. Newland · 27 Cal. 2d 164 - People v. Bender · 37 Cal. 2d 614 - People v. Cullen · 114 Cal. App. 2d 680 - People v. Frankfort · People v. Isby

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

  1. ““Before the verdict of a jury which has been approved by the trial court can be set aside on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below. We must assume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact which the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict, the opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant a reversal. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ] ; People v. Frankfort, 114 Cal.App.2d 680, 689 [ 251 P.2d 401 ].) “Applying these principles, it is clear that there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. In addition to the evidence mentioned above touching upon the question of the corpus delicti, the jury had before it the fact of defendant’s use of a false name following his flight to Las Vegas, his incriminating statements to Cook and the representative of the sheriff’s office in Las Vegas, the decedent’s threat to turn him over to his probation officer for writing cheeks on her account, and his past conduct in striking her. Other circumstances need not be enumerated for these adequately support the verdict that defendant was criminally responsible for his wife’s death. “People v. Burns, 109 Cal.App.2d 524 [ 241 P.2d 308 , 242 P”
    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.