People v. Hatch’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 1964 · most notably People v. Selby (1926), 34 Cal. 2d 478 - People v. Letourneau (1949)
51 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. Ward · People v. Frank · People v. Jones · People v. Sanders · 13 Cal. App. 521 - People v. Hatch
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is claimed that no demand was shown to have been made upon defendant for the money involved with which it was his duty to comply. ‘ ‘ In the first place, the guilt or innocence of defendant does not necessarily depend upon the question whether or not any demand has been made upon him for the money involved. The real question is, Does the evidence show a fraudulent appropriation by defendant of the money involved? Neither People v. Page, 116 Cal. 387 , [ 48 Pac. 326 ], nor People v. Royce, 106 Cal. 173 , [ 37 Pac. 630 , 39 Pac. 524 ], lays down the rule that a demand is necessary as a matter of law to constitute an embezzlement. “In each of these cases the court discussed the evidence, and held that it was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty, and in so doing adverted to the fact that no demand had been made, and in each case also adverted to the fact that it had not been shown that the defendant had in fact or at all appropriated the money involved to his own use, or that he did not have it on hand at all times to meet any demand if one had been made. ‘No doubt embezzlement may be established under certain circumstances without proof of a demand, as where other evidence clearly shows an appropriation by an employee of his employer’s funds, with intent to do so fraudulently and feloniously. ’ (People v. Royce, 106 Cal. 173 , [ 37 Pac. 630 , 39 Pac. 524 ].) In some cases, in the absence of other sufficient proof, a demand may be necessary to fix the fact of the fraud”
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.