People v. Robarge’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably People v. Redmond (1969), Mercer v. Perez (1968)
158 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 Rochin v. People of California · Green v. Soule · 27 Cal. 2d 7 - People v. Sarazzawski · People v. Haeussler · Estate of Bainbridge
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [15] While it is the exclusive province of the jury to find the facts, it is the duty of the trial court to see that this function is intelligently and justly performed, and in the exercise of its supervisory power over the verdict, the court, on motion for a new trial, should consider the probative force of the evidence and satisfy itself that the evidence as a whole is sufficient to sustain the verdict. [Citations.] [16] It has been stated that a defendant is entitled to two decisions on the evidence, one by the jury and the other by the court on motion for a new trial. [Citations.] This does not mean, however, that the court should disregard the verdict or that it should decide what result it would have reached if the case had been tried without a jury, but instead that it should consider the proper weight to be accorded to the evidence and then decide whether or not, in its opinion, there is sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict. [Citations.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court `should [not] disregard the verdict ... but instead ... should consider the proper weight to be accorded to the evidence and then decide whether or not, in its opinion, there is sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict.' ( People v. Robarge (1953) 41 Cal.2d 628, 633 [, 262 P.2d 14 ]....)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is the province of the trial judge to see that the jury intelligently and justly performs its duty and, in the exercise of a proper legal discretion, to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Watts · People v. Watts
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.