People v. Odom’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 63 Cal. 2d 74 - People v. Holford (1965), 23 Cal. App. 4th 174 - Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994)
2 district · 34 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. Watts · 119 Cal. App. 393 - People v. Rallo · 69 Cal. App. 574 - People v. Swiggy · People v. Sheldon · 100 Cal. App. 639 - People v. Steele
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An information which charges that a person ‘willfully and unlawfully’ performed an act is equivalent to alleging that he knowingly did so, and thus supplies the element of knowledge of the unlawful act where that element is necessary to be alleged in the pleading.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The offense of failing to stop an automobile which has struck and injured a person and to render assistance to the victim of the accident, as provided by section 480 of the Vehicle Code, applies with equal force to the owner of the machine who is riding therein at the time of the accident with full authortiy to direct and control the operation as it does to the person who is actually driving the vehicle. The term ‘driver of the vehicle’ as it is used in the statute includes the owner of the machine who is present and has the control of its operation.” (Citing People v. Rallo, 119 Cal.App. 393, 397 [ 6 P.2d 516 ]; People v. Steele, 100 Cal.App. 639, 644 [ 280 P. 999 ] ; People v. Maggio, 90 Cal.App. 683 [ 266 P. 813 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is no merit to the contention that there is a fatal variance between the allegation of the information that the accident occurred 'upon a public highway' in Merced County and the proof that the body of the man was found on 'Shaffer Road.' ... It is immaterial whether the accident occurred on a street in Atwater or on an extension of that street outside of the city limits, termed Shaffer Road. It was called both a highway and a street. Section 81 of the Vehicle Code defines a highway as follows: ' "Street”
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.