Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 CAL2D 166 - People v. Chessman

People v. Chessman’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

333
cited by 333 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 306 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 333 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Logan (1979), 67 Cal. 2d 365 - People v. Lara (1967)

18 federal appellate · 306 state decisions — followed in 23 states

11401951196019701980199020002010decided

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 Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · 35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles · In Re Shull · People v. Chesser · 33 Cal. 2d 52 - People v. Hardy

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 333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is the fact, not the distance, of forcible removal which constitutes kidnapping in this state.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`any touching of the person of another against his will and with physical force in an intentional, hostile and aggravated manner, or projecting of such force against his person.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““An essential element of the crime of robbery or attempted kidnapping or kidnapping [of] which the defendant is accused in counts 2, 3 & 4 of the information is intent, the law requiring that to constitute such a crime there must exist a union or joint operation of criminal conduct and criminal intent. However, this does not mean that one must intend all the consequences of his conduct, or that he must know that such conduct is unlawful, to he guilty of a public offense such as that charged against the defendant in this ease. The intent to do the forbidden thing constitutes the criminal intent. The law requires that to be guilty of crime, one must intend the conduct that fits the description of the crime and must engage in that conduct knowingly and wilfully. ’ ’ 5 “In the case of certain crimes it is necessary that, in addition to the intended act which characterizes the offense, the act must be accompanied by a specific or particular intent without which such a crime may not be committed. “This [sic] in the crime of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery charged in count one of the information, a necessary element is the existence in the mind of the perpetrator of the specific intent to commit robbery and, unless such intent so exists, that crime is not committed. ’ ’ 6 “An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements, namely, a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. ’ ’ 7”
    2 later decisions 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.