People v. Markham’s Empirical Analysis
1883
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 263 - People v. Diedrich (1982), United States v. Frega (1999)
12 federal appellate · 56 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 United States v. Worrall · Brummel & Co. v. Enders, Sutton & Co. · Barefield v. State · Knode v. Williamson · In re People Ex rel. Purley
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Assuming (although the record is silent on the subject) that the accused introduced evidence of his general reputation for integrity, it is clear that evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, that among the limited number of people employed in a particular public building his character was bad, was inadmissible. The prosecution should have been restricted to such proof touching the character of the accused as indicated his general reputation in the community in which he resided, as distinguished from his reputation among a few persons in a particular building. The estimate placed upon his character by the community generally could not be shown by proof only as to the estimate placed upon him by persons in the custom house.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““T'he offense consists, in contemplation of the statute, in poisoning and corrupting the fountain of justice, and although the particular deleterious consequence designed to be effected by the parties has not ensued, the state, nevertheless, has an officer corrupted and society has lost all protection for its rights, so far as the administration of the law by him is concerned.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State““. . . when a police officer receives money in consideration of his promise that he will not arrest any one of a class of offenders against the criminal laws, he is guilty of receiving a bribe, because the case of one who has committed the offense, and the consequent duty of the officer to arrest, is ‘a matter which may be brought before him in his official capacity.’ ””
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.