People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 10 Cal. App. 4th 1079 - People v. Ronnie P. (1992), 16 Cal. 3d 879 - In Re Daoud (1976)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 39 Cal. 2d 41 - In Re Levi · In Re Perez · People v. Williams · In Re Davis · 47 Cal. 2d 814 - In Re Bine
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.
““We fail to find in the special report any allegation offact from which the court could reasonably find that the appellant had violated the terms of his probation. It does not order him to support his child or to report to the probation officer at regular intervals, or otherwise. He was simply ordered to obey all laws and lawful directives of the probation officer. “There is nothing in the record before us from which the court could find that appellant was ever directed by the probation officer to report to him or to the Alameda County Probation Department. At most, there is a vague inference that appellant had been directed to report to the Alameda County Probation Department gleaned from the fact that he ‘was no longer in contact with the Alameda County Probation Department.’ “Nor does the allegation of the special report, with reference to the failure to make child support payments, and appellant’s failure to appear at a hearing in municipal court thereon, satisfy the requirements, of an allegation of fact that he violated the terms of his probation. Appellant was not ordered to make child support payments as a term of probation.” ( 12 Cal.App.3d 621, 627-628 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beckley v. Denise C.
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.