People v. Faber’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1975
6 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 Snively v. Record Publishing Co. · People v. Lewis · People v. Smith · 76 Cal. App. 354 - People Ex Rel. Los Angeles Bar Ass'n v. California Protective Corp. · Carpenter v. Ashley
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It will be seen that one important element of the crime of arson, as defined in the Code, is the ‘intent to destroy.’ The words quoted are a part of the description of the crime of arson, and there can be no such crime in the absence of this intent to destroy. It is therefore necessary that this essential element should be averred in the information, either in the language of the statute or in some other way, so as to make it clearly appear that the defendant had this specific intent and purpose, and that the building was burned by him to carry such intent and purpose into execution. The words ‘willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and maliciously’ were properly used in the information, but they are not sufficient. Such words import only that' criminal intent which is a necessary part of every felony . . . but they do not necessarily include the specific purpose to destroy the building which is an element of the crime of arson. ‘Whether the indictment is on a statute or at the common law, it is a rule, universal and without exception, that every intent, like everything else which the law has made an element of the offense, must be alleged; for otherwise no prima facie case appears.’ 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 523.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . Where specific intent enters into the definition of the crime . . . mere intentional commission of the act denounced is not enough, and therefore it is not enough to charge that it was ‘wilfully’ done. . . .” (p. 755.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Giddings
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.