¶1I concur in the judgment, on the ground that the court below erred in allowing the question quoted in the foregoing opinion to be put to *306the witness, Fannie Elliott, and in admitting her answer thereto. In my opinion, the instructions held to be erroneous in the foregoing, are not erroneous. (People v. Hong Ah Duck, 61 Cal. 387, People v. Raten, 63 Cal. 421.)
80 Cal. 296
People v. Elliott
Decided September 2, 1889
California Supreme Court · decided 1889-09-02
<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Inyo County, and from an order denying a new trial.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>
Relies on People v. Hong Ah Duck · People v. Raten
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1889-09-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 1948
21 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.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →