77 Cal. App. 2d 621 - People v. Chavez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While the circumstances here are distressing, the evidence indicates a complete failure on the part of the appellant to use any of the care towards this infant which was necessary for its welfare and which was naturally required of her. While it is conceivable that in some such cases the mental and physical condition of a mother, at the time, might prevent her from exercising that reasonable care wbicb would ordinarily be required, and thus excuse ber from blame for the consequences of her failure to act, no such situation here appears. The appellant’s own testimony discloses-not only that she had a full realization of the situation but that She was able to think clearly and act with definite ends in view. With plenty of assistance near at hand she intentionally chose not to call for any help. Although she knew that the baby had dropped into the toilet she made no effort to rescue' it or care for it for some time. Knowing that the placenta should be removed she gave her first attention to that. Even after that was accomplished she got up, turned on the light and proceeded to care for herself. Only after this was done and some seven minutes after the baby was born did she pick up the infant and make any effort to observe its condition. Even then her actions were very perfunctory and she made no effort to do anything, or to call for aid, in order to take care of the baby and attempt to preserve its life. She then let it remain on the floor in a cold room for some fifteen minut”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shephard · 77 Cal. App. 4th 368 - People v. Anderson

2. “There is not much change in the child itself between a moment before and a moment after its expulsion from the body of its mother, and normally, while still *Page 645 dependent upon its mother, the child for some time before it is born, has not only the possibility but a strong probability of an ability to live an independent life. . . . While before birth or removal it is in a sense dependent upon its mother for life, there is another sense in which it has started an independent existence after it has reached a state of development where it is capable of living and where it will, in the normal course of nature and with ordinary care, continue to live and grow as a separate being. While it may not be possible to draw an exact line applicable to all cases, the rules of law should recognize and make some attempt to follow the natural and scientific facts to which they relate. . . . [I]t would be a mere fiction to hold that a child is not a human being because the process of birth has not been fully completed, when it has reached that state of viability when the destruction of the life of its mother would not end its existence and when, if separated from the mother naturally or by artificial means, it will live and grow in the normal manner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Cal. 3d 619 - Keeler v. Superior Court

3. “a viable child in the process of being born is a human being within the meeting of the homicide statutes, whether or not the process has been fully completed. It should at least be considered a human being where it is a living baby and where in the natural course of events a birth which is already started would naturally be successfully completed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Cal. 3d 619 - Keeler v. Superior Court