People v. Ives’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably 49 Cal. 2d 409 - People v. McCaughan (1957), 57 Cal. 2d 415 - People v. Ditson (1962)
123 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. Negra · People v. Selby · People v. Robbins · People v. Kempley · 136 Cal. App. 301 - People v. Tinnin
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evh dence, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. To warrant a conviction it must be proven to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is not necessary that it should be so proven before other evidence is introduced which corroborates it or strengthens reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. If a prima facie case is presented that the deceased met his death by means of an unlawful act of another, the evidence is sufficient. (Citing eases.) . . . ‘ ‘ To prove a prima facie case of corpus delicti, all that was required was to show a reasonable probability that a criminal act of another had been the direct cause of the death of Sherrard.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Unsoundness of. mind does not per se establish the incompetency of a .witness. It was for the trial court to determine whether Ives was able to perceive and could make known his perceptions to others. * * * One may be insane upon a certain subject but sane as to other matters. One may be unable to. distinguish legally between right and wrong, and still be able to narrate facts chronologically, correctly, intelligently and truly. (Citing cases) On the motions for new trial the trial judge in this case had an opportunity of considering whether Ives understood and appreciated testimony given under oath; whether he1 had the mental power to recollect, and the ability to narrate; in other words, the trial judge/had the opportunity to and did' pass upon the truthfulness of the testimony given by Ives on the trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.