34 Cal. App. 336 - People v. Lensen’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1945
4 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 State v. McClear · People v. Pico · Hunnel v. State · Hopkins v. Railroad · 4 Indian Terr. 233 - Dennee v. McCoy
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.
“"Section 7 of the Penal Code, in defining the senses in which words are used in that Code, provides that ‘words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter’; and the other Codes have similar provisions. We do not think the word ‘men,’ as found in the sections above referred to, is used in its generic sense, and hence was intended to include women, as for example, the word ‘horse’ at common law was held to include ‘mare,’ and as held in People v. Pico, 62 Cal. 50 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kelley“Under the word `homo,' also, though a name common to both sexes, the female is, however, excluded propter defectum sexus (because not of the male sex),”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. . Emery
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.