People v. Huston’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 1967 · most notably 21 Cal. 2d 690 - People v. Huston (1943), 31 Cal. 2d 469 - People v. Westek (1948)
32 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.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, though never so innocent'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . The law is established in California that, in a prosecution for committing lewd and lascivious acts prohibited by section 288 of the Penal Code, evidence that defendant has perpetrated similar acts with a person or persons other than the prosecuting witness is inadmissible and, if received, is prejudicial error (People v. Rogers, 26 Cal.App.2d 371, 372 [ 79 P.2d 404 ] ; People v. Asavis, 22 Cal.App.2d 492, 494 [ 71 P.2d 307 ]; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law [1940] 1178, § 691). “Applying the rule of law above stated to the facts in the instant case, it is clear that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the proseention to introduce over objection evidence that on prior occasions defendant with minor female children other than the prosecuting witness had committed or attempted to commit offenses prohibited by section 288 of the Penal Code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Buchel“This court on previous occasions has directed the attention of the profession to the reasons for this rule, which are so aptly stated in the universally acknowledged pronouncement of Lord Chief Justice Hale on the subject of the crime of rape, which also applies to offenses interdicted by section 288 of the Penal Code. It is as follows:”
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.