State v. Morf’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance (1966), State v. London (1960)
34 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 44 Cal. 2d 861 - People v. Penny · State v. Gloyd · State v. Cantrell · State of Oregon v. Wojahn · State v. Barnett
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘We are faced with the situation of two statutes each providing that identical acts shall constitute a crime. However, Section 5161 provides that such acts shall constitute manslaughter and a felony, while Chapter 186 provides that such acts shall constitute negligent homicide and a misdemeanor. The difference in degree provided in the two statutes for the same offense, in our opinion, has created an inconsistency which cannot be reconciled on any reasonable basis.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Atchley v. State · State v. London““In essence, therefore, the crime of involuntary manslaughter by automobile has as its main element ‘a reckless disregard for the life and safety of others’. The crime of negligent homicide set forth in Chapter 186 has as its main element the driving of a motor vehicle ‘in reckless disregard of the safety of others’. There is no distinction between the elements of the two crimes as defined and, accordingly, the two statutes provide for the punishment of identical acts and the same proof that would support an indictment under one statute would he required to support an indictment under the other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Burgess““. . . we have noted above that this court has not hitherto laid down a specific definition of ‘without due care and circumspection’. However, it would seem to require some fine and perhaps tenuous reasoning to hold that the criminal negligence thereby required is not practically equivalent to that required by the later negligent homicide statute. ... We find no substantial difference between the criminal negligence required to convict under both the felony and the misdemeanor statutes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. London
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.