71 Cal. App. 2d 729 - People v. Ely’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. ““Section 500 of the Vehicle Code, as originally adopted in 1935, St. 1935, p. 173, defined an offense distinct and different from that of involuntary manslaughter. The original test of culpability as to the Vehicle Code offense of negligent homicide was whether ordinary care was exercised. The test applicable to the Penal Code offense of manslaughter was whether due caution and circumspection were exercised. People v. Pociask, 14 Cal. 2d 679 , 96 P. 2d 788 ; People v. Beckhard, 14 Cal. 2d 690 , 96 P. 2d 794 ; People v. Amick, 20 Cal. 2d 247 , 125 P. 2d 25 . A prosecution under either section was permissible, and it has been intimated that a prosecution and acquittal under one would not place the accused in jeopardy as to the other. People v. Amick. supra; People v. Crow, 48 Cal. App. 2d 666 , 120 P. 2d 686 . The two statutes wrere neither repugnant to nor inconsistent with each other; they were in pari materia.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cantrell

2. ““In 1943 the Legislature expressly repealed this entire section of the Vehicle Code and by the same act (Stats. 1943, Chap. 421, p. 1959) section 193 of the Penal Code was amended. Chapter 421 reads as follows: ‘Section 1. Section 500 of the Vehicle Code is repealed. Sec. 2. Section 193 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 193. Manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the State Prison for not exceeding 10 years, except that a violation of subdivision 2 of Section 192 of this code resulting from the operation of a vehicle is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or in the State Prison for not more than five years.’ The Legislature did not, however, at that session re-enact Penal Code section 192 or otherwise redefine the offense of manslaughter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cantrell

3. ““Without disputing the soundness of this reasoning, it should be pointed out that in both the cited and instant situations the Legislature did nothing more than create an exception to the applicability of a statute which otherwise remained in force. In the cited case the original statute expressly contemplated exceptions to its application. In the instant case the subsequent statute alone created the exception. Both eases clearly come within the rule quoted from 25 Ruling Case Law 934, and approved by the Supreme Court in the ease cited.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Cal. App. 2d 696 - Woollomes v. Woody