Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Cal. 79 - People v. Beggs

People v. Beggs’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
7
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 27 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Green (1980), 39 Cal. 4th 299 - Flatley v. Mauro (2006)

13 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

15019181920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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. Schafer · McDonald v. People · People v. Kromphold · 7 Cal. App. 330 - People v. Schmitz · Morrill v. Nightingale

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

  1. “A person whose property has been stolen cannot claim the right to punish the thief himself without process of law, and to make him compensate him for the loss of his property by maliciously threatening to accuse him of the offense, or to do an injury to his person or property, with intent to extort property from him.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is the means employed which the law denounces, and, though the purpose may be to collect a just indebtedness arising from and created by the criminal act for which the threat is to prosecute the wrongdoer, it is nevertheless within the statutory inhibition. The law does not contemplate the use of criminal process as a means of collecting a debt. To invoke such process for the purpose named is, as held by all authorities, contrary to public policy. Hence good faith, or the fact that the end accomplished by such means is rightful, cannot avail one as a defense in such prosecution, any more than such facts would constitute a defense where one compels payment of a just debt by the threat to do an unlawful injury to the person of his debtor.””
    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.