People v. McNulty’s Empirical Analysis
1892
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 295 - People v. Rossi (1976), 54 Cal. 2d 9 - People v. Harmon (1960)
2 federal appellate · 65 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Medley · People v. Bushton · Reynolds v. Superior Court · People v. Travers · Ex Parte Murray
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“many a lame and impotent conclusion in criminal cases, in which the defendant escaped punishment because the legislature, in the hurry and confusion of amending and enacting statutes, had forgotten to insert a clause to save offenses and liabilities already committed or incurred from the effect of express or implied repeals.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bunn“to prevent the miscarriage of justice in cases where the legislature should repeal or substantially change a penal statute, and neglect to put a special saving clause into the new enactment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bunn
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.