40 Cal. 3d 192 - People v. Garfield’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 2 Cal. 4th 593 - DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992), 46 Cal. 3d 585 - People v. Jones (1988)
2 district · 71 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 Van Arsdale v. Hollinger · 29 Cal. 3d 814 - People v. Davis · People v. Horowitz · 20 Cal. 3d 618 - Brian W. v. Superior Court · People v. Olson
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A will is not a public document before it is filed for probate. Thus, any falsification of a will before it is filed would not constitute the falsification of a public record.... The gravamen of the charged offense is the offering for probate of a will known to be false or forged. The offense was complete at the moment defendant offered the will for probate with knowledge of its falsity. The fact that the will was subsequently accepted for filing and became a part of the public record is not relevant to the statutory proscription. Let us assume, for example, that the forgery here had been discovered before the will had been officially recorded as a public document, or that the will had not been accepted for filing because of some technical defect unrelated to the forgery. In either case defendant would have been guilty of violating section 115. He certainly could not have asserted as a defense that the forged will he offered for filing had not yet been recorded. Whether or not a violation of section 115 actually produces a false public record is simply not material to the offense defined by that statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. People““A limitation of time prescribed in this chapter does not commence to run until discovery of an offense described in this subdivision. This subdivision applies to an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, a material element of which is fraud or breach of a fiduciary obligation or the basis of which is misconduct in office by a public officer, employee, or appointee, including, but not limited to, the following offenses: “(1) Grand theft of any type, forgery, falsification of public records, or acceptance of a bribe by a public official or a public employee. «« “(3) A violation of Section 25540, of any type, or Section 25541 of the Corporations Code.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Fine“[W]hen language which is reasonably susceptible of two constructions is used in a penal law ordinarily that construction which is more favorable to the offender will be adopted. [¶] The defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute.”
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.