People v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently February 1999 · most notably People v. Denne (1956), People v. Antista (1954)
111 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 28 Cal. 2d 306 - People v. Peete · People v. Gory · 79 Cal. App. 2d 94 - People v. Henderson · People v. Bercovitz · People v. Bassett
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" The general test of relevancy is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish any fact material for the People or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense. If it does, then the evidence is admissible whether or not it embraces the commission of another offense and whether the other crime be similar or dissimilar. [Citing a case.] “Evidence of other acts of a similar nature may be admitted when not too remote, to prove a material fact, or where it tends to show motive, scheme, plan or system, or to show guilty knowledge and intent. [Citing four cases.] ” (See also People v. Mullaly, 77 Cal.App. 60, 64 [ 245 P. 811 ] ; People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 315 [ 169 P.2d 924 ]; People v. Morani, 196 Cal. 154, 158 [ 236 P. 135 ].) The evidence was properly admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Evidence of other acts of a similar nature may be admitted when not too remote, to prove a material fact, or where it tends to show motive, scheme, plan or system, or to show guilty knowledge and intent. (People v. Henderson, 79 Cal. App.2d 94, 119 [ 179 P.2d 406 ]; People v. Hennessey, 201 Cal. 568, 582 [ 258 P. 49 ]; People v. Brown, 72 Cal.App.2d 717, 720 [ 165 P.2d 707 ]; People v. Bercovitz, 163 Cal. 636, 639 [ 126 P. 479 , 43 L.RA.N.S. 667].)””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Freytas“'Where the circumstances in evidence are such as would reasonably justify an inference of guilt, and the court so found, the fact that an inference of innocence might also just as reasonably have been predicated on such circumstances does not present a question of law reviewable by an appellate court.'”
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.