Webb v. People’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 1992 · most notably Stull v. People (1959), People v. Lucero (1980)
27 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 Warford v. People · Jaynes v. People · Cargill v. People · Longwell v. People
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Assailing the credibility of witnesses by questioning them about their supposed weaknesses, misdeeds and mis-fortunes, short of crimes whereof they have been convicted, and wholly unrelated to the issue which is being tried, is all too common. * * * Such practice is vicious in its inevitable tendency to prejudice both the party and the witness, and counsel are expected to refrain scrupulously therefrom and thus to observe the spirit as v/eil as the letter of the law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ager v. Adams · People v. Taylor““In the case at bar the district attorney offered the evidence of the alleged similar offense for the purpose, as he expressed it, ‘of showing intent to commit robbery, and for that purpose only.’ It was thereupon admitted, over the defendant’s objection, but limited to the special purpose stated. It is at once apparent, by even a casual comparison, that this is not a case in which such evidence could possibly have a proper bearing on the question of intent. There is no logical connection conceivable between the two independent offenses. The situation is clearly distinguishable from those in various cases cited by the people, where we have sustained the admission of similar-offense evidence- under the exceptions above noted; and a further discussion of them is unnecessary. The admission of such evidence in the present instance was reversible error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kostal v. People““ * * * In other words, the earlier supposedly similar offense was entirely independent of the later one and disconnected therefrom. They were separated by a full week of time, they were perpetrated within the most populous city of Colorado in two distinct and separate places, the manner of their commission was utterly different in the first instance from the second, and the two victims were strangers to each other. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kostal v. People
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.