People v. Morlock’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently December 1995 · most notably People v. Ford (1964), 50 Cal. 2d 383 - People v. Wein (1958)
87 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 28 Cal. 2d 121 - People v. Valentine · 30 Cal. 2d 676 - People v. Eggers · 37 Cal. 2d 656 - People v. Chavez · People v. Steccone · People v. Boss
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... one likely to produce death or great bodily injury”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““An essential element of the crimes of which the defendant is accused is intent, the law requiring that to constitute such crimes 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 be guilty of public offenses such as those charged against the defendant in this ease. The intent to do the forbidden things 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. ’ ’ “Every person who enters any house . . . with intent to unlawfully steal, take or carry away the personal property of another of any value or to commit any felony is guilty of burglary. The essence of a burglary is entering a place such as I have mentioned with such specific intent; and the crime is complete as soon as the entry is made, regardless of whether the intent thereafter is carried out. “The degree of burglary as charged in the Information in this case is Second Degree Burglary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Butcher““. . . We are of the opinion that under the evidence here it is not possible that defendant could have been prejudiced by the erroneous statement. We do not, however, condone such conduct on the part of the People. It is obvious that there is no segment of the legal profession more familiar, or who should be more familiar, with the criminal law than that which engages in the prosecution of criminal cases, and it can hardly be said that a statement of the character made by the prosecution in this ease was the result of mere inadvertence. If this were a case where proof of guilt was questionable, we would be disposed to hold that such a statement constituted prejudicial misconduct and justified a reversal. Upon the record before us, however, we are disposed to hold that the misconduct was not prejudicial to defendant and that a miscarriage of justice did not result therefrom (Cal. Const., art. VI, §4%).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Johnson
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.