Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 Cal. App. 213 - People v. MacIel

71 Cal. App. 213 - People v. MacIel’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
February 1985
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 1985 · most notably 36 Cal. 2d 222 - People v. Zerillo (1950), 58 Cal. 2d 732 - People v. Marsh (1962)

44 state decisions

1601925193019401950196019701980decided

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 People v. Johnson · People v. Mize · Patterson v. State · Langford v. San Diego Electric Railway Co. · People v. Harris

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is only when the intent is not made an affirmative element of the crime that the law presumes that the act, if knowingly done, was done with a criminal intent. (16 C. J., p. 81.) When a specific intent is an element of the offense it presents a question of fact which must be proved like any other fact in the case. It is none the less a question of fact though it cannot be proved by direct and positive evidence. All the circumstances surrounding the act furnish the evidence from which the presence or absence of the specific intent may be inferred by the jury; and no presumption of law can ever arise that will decide it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In every crime or public offense there must exist a union or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence ; but when the act committed by the accused is of itself an unlawful act, the law in the first instance presumes the criminal intent and the burden of proof falls upon the defendant to show the absence of criminal intent.””
    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.