People v. Saunders

How courts have described this case

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

• “[O]ne cannot commit an assault with intent to commit oral copulation without also committing attempted oral copulation.”
• “[O]ne cannot commit an assault with intent to commit oral copulation without also committing attempted oral copulation.”
• maxim is subordinate to primary rule that intent governs interpretation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. McClellan
  California Supreme Court· 1993-12-02· cited 121×
• David Clinton Hatton v. Edward Bonner
  Ninth Circuit· 2004-01-27· cited 52×
• People v. Bernardino S.
  California Court of Appeal· 1992-03-13· cited 42×
• People v. Luisa Z.
  California Court of Appeal· 2000-02-29· cited 25×
• Idaho Press Club, Inc. v. State Legislature
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2006-03-20· cited 16×
• People v. Villela
  California Court of Appeal· 1994-05-24· cited 12×
• Hatton v. Bonner
  Ninth Circuit· 2003-10-08· cited 4×
• Harris v. Brown
  Ninth Circuit· 2009-07-16

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Ghent
  California Supreme Court· 1987-08-13· cited 434×
• People v. Sumstine
  California Supreme Court· 1984-09-17· cited 140×
• People v. Rupp
  California Supreme Court· 1953-08-14· cited 75×
• People v. Joseph B.
  California Supreme Court· 1983-11-14· cited 60×
• Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Geyer
  California Court of Appeal· 1967-01-06· cited 26×
• People v. Brun
  California Court of Appeal· 1989-07-31· cited 20×
• People v. Tye
  California Court of Appeal· 1984-10-04· cited 6×
• People v. Garner
  California Court of Appeal· 1985-02-28· cited 3×