People v. Plath’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 1965 · most notably People v. Jerman (1946), 231 Cal. App. 2d 827 - People v. Barthel (1965)
27 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. Frank · People v. Harrold · People v. Gosset · People v. Jailles · Matter of Roberts
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are of the opinion that the situation in this case is not one where it may fairly be held that we have a statute enumerating 'a series of acts either of which separately or all together constitute the offense.' " (Emphasis given to the definite article is that of the Supreme Court.) The case was distinguished from People v. Frank, and this significant language was used ( 166 Cal. 227, 232 [ 135 P. 954, 956 ]): "The vagrancy statute (Pen. Code, sec. 647), which is relied on by appellant in this connection, does undertake to define a particular offense, to wit: 'Vagrancy,' declaring in eleven different subdivisions what acts shall constitute one a 'vagrant,' and render him liable to the penalty therein prescribed. Even under this statute it has never been held, so far as we can find, that a complaint charging a defendant with each and all of the acts specified in the eleven subdivisions would not be subject to demurrer for failure to comply with the provisions of sections 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code. [ 103 Cal.App.2d Supp. 919 ] (See in this connection People v. Lee, 107 Cal. [477], 480 [ 40 P. 754 ].) The case of Ex parte McCarthy, 72 Cal. 384 [ 14 P. 96 ], relied on in this connection, where the complaint charged the matters contained in two of the subdivisions of the vagrancy section, was a habeas corpus proceeding, and inasmuch as the complaint did certainly state facts constituting a public offense within the jurisdiction of the court, it was not a nullity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There is, of course, a plain distinction between ‘pool-selling or bookmaking, ’ and the ordinary bet or wager between two individuals upon the result, say, of a horse race or a baseball game. Subdivision 1 makes the engaging in pool-selling or bookmaking a crime, and subdivision 6 apparently makes the ordinary bet or wager above referred to a crime.””
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.