Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 CAL 403 - People v. Compton

People v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis

1899

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
6
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 35 Cal. 3d 547 - People v. Beeman (1984), People v. Mayen (1922)

63 state decisions

1401899190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 People v. Dole · People v. Rathbun · People v. Irwin · People v. Stites · People v. Williams

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In this case the defendant brought himself within the letter and the meaning of the provision. He made it appear by the facts set up in his affidavit (however ill-founded the affidavit may have been in truth) that the judge was biased and prejudiced against him. No counter-affidavits were filed. There was, then, not even a conflict upon the facts. The duty of the trial judge was plain. The defendant having made it appear by affidavit in conformity with the requirements of the statute that the judge was biased or prejudiced against him, his motion should have been granted.””
    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.