73 Cal. App. 162 - People v. Mehra’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably People v. Coltrin (1936), 187 Cal. App. 2d 68 - People v. Horn (1960)
1 district · 25 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 Morey v. Commonwealth · Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co. · 70 Cal. App. 225 - People v. Brannon · People v. Townsend · 70 Cal. App. 483 - In Re Moore
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The better reasoning, we think, supports the holding that in addition to possession . . . there must be shown to establish the fact of maintaining a common nuisance, a series of sales or a single sale, accompanied by such attendant circumstances as reasonably raise the inference of the purpose for which the possession of the intoxicating liquor is had, or possession, in connection with surrounding circumstances, such as the large quantity of liquor on hand, the various kinds of liquor, the containers in which it is kept, the character of the place, the manner in which it is fitted up, the use of passwords in gaining access to the premises, evidence of people visiting the place in unusual numbers or at unusual times, all of which may reasonably raise the inference of a purpose to sell and sufficiently support the charge of maintaining a common nuisance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Holland““ ‘Possession,’ says the court in Beyer v. United States, 282 Fed. 226 , ‘is a crime separate and distinct from the crime of the sale of liquor. ’ In section 3 of the National Prohibition Law it is expressly declared that ‘no person shall . . . possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this act.’ Possession, therefore, except as authorized by the Volstead Act, is one of the acts which the Wright Act, by its adoption of the ‘penal provisions’ of the federal statute, denounces as a criminal offense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““By the eighth instruction the jury is advised that the offense of unlawful possession is transformed into a different crime if that unlawful possession is inside instead of outside of a building. The statute makes no such distinction. Unlawful possession, as unlawful possession, is simply unlawful possession whether the forbidden article is upon the person or within a building. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Von Latta
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.