State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2008
4 federal appellate · 13 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 42 Cal. 2d 246 - People v. Ashley · 57 Cal. 2d 276 - Perry v. Superior Court · State v. Lucero · State v. Romero · Flowers v. Auto Mut. Indemnity Co.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Likewise, it must be established that the victim relied on the false representation and surrendered her money to appellant on the strength of the false representation. Perry v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 57 Cal.2d 276 , 19 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 368 P.2d 529 ; * * *. Appellant asserts there is no testimony that the prosecuting witness relied upon the statement; however, in Perry v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, supra, it is said: “ * * * ‘the express testimony of a victim of false pretense that he was induced to part with his money by the fraudulent statements of the accused is not essential. It is sufficient if the inference of his reliance could have been drawn from all the evidence. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McKay“There are two positions in the offense of obtaining money under false pretenses regarding the mental condition of the victim. There is the position taken in some of the cases that the statute was designed to extend no further than to embrace such representations as were accompanied with circumstances fitted to deceive a person of common sagacity and exercising ordinary caution. (Cites omitted.) The other position, which seems to be the majority view, holds that the statutes covering the crime are designed to protect not only the ordinarily wary and prudent, but also the ignorant, credulous, and foolish.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hamilton
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.