48 Cal. 2d 394 - People v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 266 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 70 Cal. 2d 522 - People v. Ireland (1969), 19 Cal. 4th 142 - People v. Breverman (1998)
2 federal appellate · 266 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 30 Cal. 2d 589 - People v. Greer · People v. Carmen · 45 Cal. 2d 171 - In Re Hess · People v. Roberts · 25 Cal. 2d 177 - People v. McCoy
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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jury, or the judge if a jury trial is waived, may find the defendant guilty of any offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged, or of an attempt to commit the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“, “The latest expression of the Supreme Court as to when a lesser offense is ‘necessarily included in that with which he is charged, ’ is People v. Marshall, 48 Cal.2d 394 [ 309 P.2d 456 ]. It was held that a lesser offense is ‘necessarily included’ if it is within the offense specifically charged in the accusatory pleading, even though its elements are not necessarily within those of the statutory definition of the crime. The court said (p. 405): “ ‘Since the decisions as to included offenses, so far as they relate to choice of a standard to measure what offenses are “necessarily included” within the meaning of section 1159 of the Penal Code, have not expressly considered or decided the question of selection as between the language of the accusatory pleading and the statutory definition, we base our choice of the specific language of the accusatory pleading upon considerations of fairness to both parties.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[b]ecause the information charged defendant with taking `an automobile,' he was put on notice that he should be prepared to defend against a showing that he took that particular kind of personal property.”
2 later decisions 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.