64 Cal. 2d 310 - People v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 594 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 622 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 10 Cal. 3d 703 - People v. Sedeno (1974), 25 Cal. 3d 668 - People v. Flannel (1979)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 594 state decisions — followed in 17 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 60 Cal. 2d 482 - People v. Henderson · People v. Washington · People v. Wells · 27 Cal. 2d 164 - People v. Bender · People v. Carmen
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 622 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An intentional act that is highly dangerous to human life, done in disregard of the actor's awareness that society requires him to conform his conduct to the law, is done with malice regardless of the fact that the actor acts without ill will toward his victim or believes that his conduct is justified. In this respect it is immaterial that he does not know that his specific conduct is unlawful, for all persons are presumed to know the law including that which prohibits causing injury or death to another. An awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society, however, is included in the statutory definition of implied malice in terms of an abandoned and malignant heart and in the definition of express malice as the deliberate intention unlawfully to take life.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ * * * a finding of provocation sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter is not the sole means by which malice can be negated and voluntary manslaughter established. A person who intentionally kills may be incapable of harboring malice aforethought because of a mental disease, defect, or intoxication, and in such case his killing, unless justified or excused, is voluntary manslaughter.’ ””
3 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.