People v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 44 Cal. 2d 861 - People v. Penny (1955), 33 Cal. 2d 52 - People v. Hardy (1948)
6 federal appellate · 29 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 State v. Strasburg · 132 Cal. App. 124 - Howard v. Howard · 118 Cal. App. 165 - People v. Sameniego · People v. Young · People v. Methever
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court further instructs you that if you shall believe from the evidence that at the time and place the defendant ran his motor vehicle, or Pontiac automobile, upon, over or against the said Victoria Grigsby 'he had a blackout of his mind or had become unconscious and that it was impossible for him to avoid running his automobile upon, against or over the said Victoria Grigs-by, by reason thereof; you will find the defendant not guilty, unless you shall further believe from the evidence, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that at said time and place and on the occasion and previous thereto, the defendant knew that he was likely to have such blackouts or unconscious spells and that it was dangerous and hazardous to the lives of others on the highways for him to operate motor vehicles upon the highways, in which event you should not acquit him upon that defense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * ii was noi whether he knew of facts which would lead ‘a reasonable man to realize’ that such a drive would create ‘an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others’ but rather the questions for the jury’s determination were (1) whether appellant failed to do something which a reasonably prudent man would under the circumstances have done, or (2) whether he omitted to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or (3) whether he exhibited the want of such care as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same circumstances.””
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.