Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 Cal. 433 - People v. Coffey

People v. Coffey’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

165
cited by 165 later decisions
19
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 156 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 15 Cal. 3d 953 - People v. Tewksbury (1976), Egan v. United States (1923)

3 federal appellate · 156 state decisions — followed in 19 states

31019111920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Stone v. State · People v. Clough · State v. Durnam · Butt v. State · People v. Collum

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

  1. “‘ ‘ When the question of an accomplice arises in the trial of a case, the general and accepted rule is for the court to instruct the jury touching the law of accomplices, and leave the question whether or not the witness be an accomplice for the decision of the jury as a matter of fact. (People v. Kraker, 72 Cal. 459 ,1 Am. St. 65, 14 Pac. 196 .) ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “evidence of an accomplice, coming from a tainted source, the witness being, first, an infamous man, from his own confession of guilt, and, second, a man usually testifying in the hope of favor or the expectation of immunity, was not entitled to the same consideration as the evidence of a clean man”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Wherever the law has denounced as a separate crime the particular act of participation by an accessory or accomplice, the sole logical and legal effect is not to destroy the relationship of accomplice, but merely to effect a modification of section 31. ...”
    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.