Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 CALAPP2D 91 - People v. Menne

People v. Menne’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
February 1996
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1996

20 state decisions

801935194019501960197019801990decided

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. Yeager · People v. Coffey · People v. Ferlin · People v. Davis · People v. Eppinger

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

  1. ““It is further contended that the testimony of the defendant in the particulars where it was uncontradicted should have been accepted by the jury as a truthful statement of the facts, basing the argument upon the case of People v. Mock Yick Gar, 14 Cal.App. 334 [ 111 Pac. 1039 ], In making this contention appellant overlooks or disregards the testimony to the effect that the reputation of the defendant was such as to render his statements unworthy of belief. In the face of such testimony it was within the province of the jury to determine what credence should be given to the testimony of the defendant, and whether they should accept as truthful any part of his testimony.””
    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.