People v. Marling’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2014
2 federal appellate · 4 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 22 Cal. 3d 749 - People v. Arbuckle · 28 Cal. 3d 210 - In Re Jeanice D. · 24 Cal. 3d 212 - People v. CARL B. · 110 Cal. App. 3d 296 - People v. McCarthy
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because contrary conclusions were contained in the probation report and reports from two psychiatrists, and the court’s familiarity with the case gained during Marling’s trial, the court expressed doubt as to the validity of the diagnostic conclusion. “Recognizing it was not bound to follow the CYA recommendation, (People v. Carl B. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 212 , 218-219 . . .), but wishing to give Marling every opportunity to show why its conclusion should be followed, the court had all CYA personnel who participated in preparing the report appear at sentencing for an examination lasting two and one-half days. “The court alternatively ruled Marling ineligible for commitment to CYA because he had been convicted of first degree murder and, after reviewing all the evidence, determined a prison commitment was appropriate.” (Id. at p. 286.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Marling accurately describes the court as being most skeptical of the soundness of the diagnostic study recommendation, the methodology of its preparation and the reliability of information on which it was based. However, contrary to Marling’s assertion, the court’s decision not to commit him to CYA was based on substantial evidence neither he nor society would materially benefit from such a commitment. Before sentencing the court reviewed the evidence in light of sentencing objectives contained in California Rules of Court, rule 410. There was no abuse of discretion.” (Id. at p. 287.)”
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.