People v. Spivak’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 1974
21 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 50 Cal. 2d 245 - People v. Lyons · People v. Gallardo · 98 Cal. App. 2d 1 - People v. Griffin · People v. Santo · People v. Brown
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In People v. MacEwing, 45 Cal.2d 218 , at page 225 [ 288 P.2d 257 ], it was said : “ ‘The decisions applying section 1111, relating to accomplices, hold that the corroborative evidence required by that provision must be considered without the aid of the testimony which is to be corroborated and that it is not sufficient if it requires the interpretation and direction of such testimony in order to give it value. (Citing cases.) There are two opinions which, although not clear, indicate that a similar rule applies with respect to section 1108. (See People v. Crain, 102 Cal.App.2d 566, 579 [ 228 P.2d 307 ]; People v. Murphy, 60 Cal.App.2d 762, 772 [ 141 P.2d 755 ].) In our opinion both statutes must be construed to mean that corroboration is not adequate if it requires aid from the testimony of the person to be corroborated in order to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense charged. The instruction is therefore erroneous.’ “And in People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577 , at page 584 [ 320 P.2d 5 ], it is set forth: “ ‘The People rely also upon the testimony of Dr. Randall, who treated Clara on January 30, 1956, as corroboration. The doctor’s testimony does not meet the test of connecting defendant with the abortion which Clara underwent. People v. Ramsey (1948), 83 Cal.App.2d 707, 713, 717 [4] [ 189 P.2d 802 ], is inconsistent with People v. MacEwing (1955), supra, 45 Cal.2d 218, 255 [7], insofar as it suggests that testimony which does not itself connect the defendan”
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.