People v. Malone’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently December 1984 · most notably People v. Buffum (1953), 71 Cal. 2d 954 - People v. Belous (1969)
88 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 People v. Newland · 27 Cal. 2d 164 - People v. Bender · 25 Cal. 2d 341 - People v. Wilson · People v. Warren · 20 Cal. 2d 306 - People v. Hoyt
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon a trial for procuring or attempting to procure an abortion, or aiding or assisting therein, . . . the defendant cannot be convicted upon the testimony of the woman upon or with whom the offense was committed, unless she is corroborated by other evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule is that it is the duty of the court in criminal cases to give, sua sponte, instructions on the general principles of law pertinent to such cases where they are not proposed or presented in writing by the parties themselves. It is not the duty of the court to give such instructions upon specific points developed through the evidence introduced at the trial, unless such instructions are requested by the party desiring them. (People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d 103, 116 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ]; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 175 [ 163 P.2d 8 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“was on a principle of law pertaining to the offense charged. It was not on a point developed through the evidence introduced at the trial. It should have been given by the court on its own motion. In view of the conclusions stated it is unnecessary to consider other points made by appellant for reversal. Order reversed. Wood, J., concurred. SHINN, J. I concur in the judgment because of error in failing to instruct on the included offense of assault. I agree that it would have been advisable to define the term”
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.