People v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably 116 Cal. App. 3d 168 - People v. Ryan (1981), 588 F. Supp. 247 - Allen v. United States (1984)
2 district · 23 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. Lippner · 71 Cal. App. 213 - People v. MacIel · 128 Cal. App. 768 - People v. Judson · 129 Cal. App. 196 - People v. Blake · 29 Cal. App. 616 - People v. Stephens
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * our reading of the section in question convinces us that the element of knowledge of the fact of the collision is necessarily to be implied from the requirements of the act, to the effect that drivers of such vehicles must stop- and render aid to those who may possibly have been injured in the collision. Moreover section 20 of the Penal Code, which is to be read together with and into the section under review, provides that ‘in every crime or public offense there must exist a union or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Parish““ * * * it is inconceivable to us that the Legislature ever intended to make the provisions of this section applicable to a person who was ignorant of the fact that the automobile which he was driving had struck another person. And it is with equal difficulty that we can bring our minds to believe that any jury would convict an accused of the violation of the provisions of said section, without being assured to a certainty that he had actual knowledge that his machine had struck a person * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Parish
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.