People v. Clark

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “At a minimum, defendant must have known that the vehicle had been unlawfully acquired and must have had that knowledge at a time when he could be said to have, in some way, aided or assisted in the driving.”
• “At a minimum, defendant must have known that the vehicle had been unlawfully acquired and must have had that knowledge at a time when he could be said to have, in some way, aided or assisted in the driving.”
• “At a minimum, defendant must have known that the vehicle had been unlaw- fully acquired and must have had that knowledge at a time when he could be said to have, in some way, aided or assisted in the driving.”
• “At a minimum, defendant must have known that the vehicle had been unlaw- fully acquired and must have had that knowledge at a time when he could be said to have, in some way, aided or assisted in the driving.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States v. Vidal
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-10-10· cited 190×
• People v. Land
  California Court of Appeal· 1994-11-21· cited 72×
• Nopring Paulino Penuliar v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
  Ninth Circuit· 2006-01-23· cited 40×
• Nopring Paulino Penuliar v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-01-12· cited 29×
• Rosen v. Sitner
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-01-18· cited 8×
• People v. Champion
  California Court of Appeal· 1968-08-19· cited 7×
• Hilt v. State
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1975-10-23· cited 5×
• People v. Segura
  California Court of Appeal· 1969-09-30· cited 1×
• People v. Jordan
  California Court of Appeal· 2015-03-16
• Penuliar v. Ashcroft
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-01-11
• Penuliar v. Ashcroft
  Ninth Circuit· 2006-01-23
• People v. Velez
  California Court of Appeal· 2022-12-02
• People v. Velez
  California Court of Appeal· 2022-12-14