People v. Talbot’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably 16 Cal. 3d 133 - People v. Stewart (1976), 61 Cal. App. 2d 608 - People v. Jones (1943)
3 federal appellate · 86 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 72 Cal. App. 102 - People v. Edwards · People v. Royce · Commonwealth v. Tenney · People v. Gordon · Warren v. State
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The element of felonious intent in every contested criminal case must necessarily be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case.... “An officer or agent of a corporation cannot take money of the corporation which is entrusted to him, or which comes into his possession by virttie of his office or agency, and use it even temporarily for his personal benefit and avoid criminal responsibility by calling it a loan. The law calls such a transaction a wrongful conversion, from which a fraudulent intent can be inferred.” [ 220 Cal. at 15 , 28 P.2d 1057 ; citations and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Weideman · State v. Teutsch““ * * * and the fact that such officers intended to restore the money or property is of no avail to them if it has not been restored before information laid or indictment found charging them with embezzlement (Pen.Code, § 512); and even if prior to the bringing of such charges the officers voluntarily and actually restore the property, such fact does not constitute a defense but merely authorizes the court in its discretion to mitigate the offense (section 513). It would seem that the Legislature here has shown in very clear terms that it is the immediate breach of trust that makes the offense, rather than the permanent deprivation of the owner of his property.” 28 P.2d at 1062 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The fact, if it be a fact, that the defendant in this ease had been accustomed to drawing and using the funds of the corporation for his personal needs, having such withdrawals charged to his personal account, and eventually paying the money back by credits due him or by payments made by him, does not relieve the acts from the stain of criminality; and even if all of the Directors of the Corporation knew of such custom, the wrong was not made right, as each was charged with a trust to use the funds of the corporation for its needs.””
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.