Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 CALAPP2D 203 - People v. Wisecarver

People v. Wisecarver’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
April 1989
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 1989 · most notably 43 Cal. 2d 243 - In Re Hallinan (1954), Coleman v. Burnett (1973)

3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

12019441950196019701980decided

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 William Taylor v. United States · United States v. John Bitty · United States v. Fritz Augustus Heinze · In re McCarty · 54 Cal. App. 2d 621 - People v. Novell

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.

  1. ““In a criminal action the sovereign has the same right to have the truth of its accusation against the defendant determined by a trial court, to the same extent and in the same degree as has the accused. (People v. Stoll, 143 Cal. 689, 696 [ 77 P. 818 ]; People v. Pruitt, 55 Cal.App.2d 272, 275 [ 130 P.2d 767 ]; People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 765 [ 297 P. 17 ].) It is as much a technical breach of the rules of procedure to deny the People a trial upon an information based upon such facts as might reasonably convince a jury of defendant’s guilt as it would be to convict a defendant upon the mere filing of an indictment. It is the duty of the magistrate to commit the accused ‘if it appears from the examination that a public offense has been committed. ’ The question of guilt is utterly one for the determination of the superior court. (Pen. Code, § 872.) ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “fraud may be committed by declaring to be true that which the declarant does not believe to be true; by suppressing a fact which he is bound to disclose; ... (Civ. Code, 1710; Wells v. Zenz, 83 Cal.App. 137, 140 [ 256 P. 484 ].) Moreover, any act fitted to deceive is actual fraud. (Civ. Code, 1572.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ ‘Probable cause’ is a state of facts which inclines a man of ordinary prudence conscientiously to entertain a strong suspicion that a prisoner is guilty.” See People v. Wisecarver, 67 Cal.App.2d 203 , 153 P.2d 778, 781 ; Woolard v. Ferrell, 26 Tenn.App. 197 , 169 S.W.2d 134 . (Emphasis ours.)”
    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.