56 Cal. App. 13 - People v. Hickok’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 1967
23 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 People v. Seaman · People v. Hagenow · 45 Cal. App. 706 - People v. Northcott · 23 Cal. App. 259 - People v. King · 54 Cal. App. 193 - People v. Sindici
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a rule, upon- the trial for a particular crime evidence which tends to show the commission of another and distinct offense by the defendant is inadmissible. To this rule there are, however, several exceptions. According to one ‘ line of authorities the state would have the right to introduce such testimony as a part of its case in chief in order to negative the possibility that the operation was necessitated -by the condition of health of the patient. (People v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514 [ 86 N. E. 370 ]; People v. Northcott, 45 Cal. App. 706 [ 189 Pac. 704 ]; People v. Sindici, 54 Cal. App. 193 [ 201 Pac. 975 ].) In two California cases the supreme court, in denying petitions for their transfer to that court, withheld its approval of this doctrine, the exigencies of those cases not requiring its application-. However, it is settled that such evidence is admissible whenever it appears that the defendant claims that the operation was innocently performed and for a lawful purpose. (People v. King, 23 Cal. App. 259 [ 137 Pac. 1076 ].) . . . “In the case of People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348 [ 61 Am. St. Rep. 326 , 65 N. W. 203 ], it is said: ‘Upon principle and authority it is clear that where a felonious intent is an essential ingredient of the crime charged, and the act done is claimed to have been innocently or accidentally done, or by mistake, or when the result is claimed to have followed an act lawfully done for a legitimate purpose, or where there is room for such an inferen”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Morani“might have been for a certain female ailment, in which event the instruments used and the sensations of pain described by the patient would have been the same as in the case of an operation to arrest pregnancy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Elges
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.