People v. Horowitz’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
141 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 3 Cal. 4th 959 - People v. Hill (1992), People v. Nunn (1956)
141 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 Berger v. United States · People v. Newland · Viereck v. United States · Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co. · 24 Cal. 2d 177 - People v. Alcalde
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the evidence in this case as to any particular count is susceptible of two constructions or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable, and one of which points to the guilt of the defendant, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law, to adopt that interpretation which will admit of the defendant’s innocence and reject that which points to his guilt. “You will notice that in this instruction this rule of law is made applicable to eases in which there are two opposing interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable. “This rule of law does not apply in a case where there are two opposing constructions sought to be placed upon the evidence, one of which appears to you to be reasonable and the other appears to you to be unreasonable. “In the latter case it would be your duty, under the law, to adopt the reasonable construction and reject the one which, in your judgment, appears to be unreasonable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There is no prescribed standard of mental competency to qualify one as a witness. It is well known that put of the mouths of babes oftentimes the truth is spoken. Since there is no standard, each instance is confided to the' discretipn of the'trial judge. . ’ ' ' . •I* ífí *t* “The fact that he [the witness] had once been committed for insanity is not conclusive at a later date. The, .determination of the qualification of a witness- is ‘almost wholly in 1 the discretion of the trial judge.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.