People v. Dail’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 222 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 2 Cal. 4th 408 - People v. Mincey (1992), People v. Carmen (1951)
3 federal appellate · 222 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 Thornhill v. Alabama · Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago Local 753 v. Meadowmoor Dairies · American Federation of Labor v. Swing · Crawford v. United States · Carlson v. People of State of California
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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Inconsistent instructions have frequently been held to constitute reversible error where it was impossible to tell which of the conflicting rules was followed by the jury”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is the law that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be viewed with distrust. This does not mean that you may arbitrarily disregard such testimony, but you should give to it the weight to which you find it to be entitled after examining it with care and caution and in the light of all the evidence in the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In considering the effect of article VI, section 4% of the Constitution, ‘We are not substituted for the jury. We are not to determine, as an original inquiry, the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence.’ (People v. O’Bryan, 165 Cal. 55, 66 [ 130 P. 1042 ] ; see, also, People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 561 [ 209 P. 560 ].) As stated in Tupman v. Haberkern, 208 Cal. 256, 263 [ 280 P. 970 ], ‘Whether the error found to be present “has resulted in a miscarriage of justice” presents a question of law on the record before the court, and the purpose of the-section (4%) was to require the court to declare as a matter of law whether the error has affected the substantial rights of the party complaining against it, and not for the purpose of determining the evidentiary value of the testimony or where the preponderance of the evidence lies. ’ ””
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.