Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 Cal. App. 440 - People v. George

74 Cal. App. 440 - People v. George’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
May 1967
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 1967 · most notably 71 Cal. App. 2d 606 - People v. Gordon (1945), People v. Gilbert (1938)

34 state decisions

11019251930194019501960decided

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. Compton · 70 Cal. App. 498 - People v. Lanzit · People v. Murray · People v. Stites · People v. Daniels

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

  1. ““It is evident that under the terms of section 184 of the Penal Code the agreement or combination is the gist of a criminal conspiracy. The negative mandate of the section, if we may employ a contradiction of terms, that ‘no agreement amounts to a conspiracy’ unless an overt act be performed in furtherance of it, must surely, when an overt act is performed, resolve itself into the affirmative that the agreement thereupon amounts to a conspiracy. This view is in accord with the law in the jurisdictions generally in which the performance of an overt act is necessary to fasten criminality upon those who conspire to consummate a forbidden purpose. At common law the combination was the gist of the conspiracy. Under the' authorities the situation is not changed by statutes requiring the performance of an overt act in order to complete the crime. The agreement is still the gist of the offense. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If, then, an indictment correctly charges an unlawful combination and agreement as actually made, and, in addition, describes any act by any one of the parties to the unlawful agreement, as an act intended to be relied on to show the agreement in operation, it is sufficient, although upon the face of the indictment, it does not appear in what manner the act described would tend to effect the object of the conspiracy.””
    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.