Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 Cal. App. 424 - In Re Williams

127 Cal. App. 424 - In Re Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
5
states following
June 1996
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1996

12 state decisions

401932194019501960197019801990decided

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 Counselman v. Hitchcock · Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Bryan · Ex parte Cohen · 46 Cal. App. 755 - In Re Application of Tahbel · People v. Weithoff

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

  1. ““All houses, boats, boat-houses, buildings, rooms, and places of every description where gaming or gambling is carried on, or where any banking or other game is played with cards, dice, or any other device, whether the same be played for money, or for any checks, chips, credit, representing money, or other representative of value, or where unlicensed manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor is allowed, or drinking thereof permitted, or where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of gaming or gambling, and all implements or property used and kept in maintaining such places, are hereby declared to be common nuisances * * *."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The concluding clause of section 334 of the Penal Code, `but no prosecution can afterwards be had against him for any offense concerning which he testified,' is in effect the same and as broad as the expression in the statute referred to in the Schwarz Case [People v. Schwarz, 78 Cal. App. 561 , 248 P. 990, 993 ] to wit: `No person shall be prosecuted * * * for or on account of any act, transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he shall have been so compelled to testify.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"No person, otherwise competent as a witness, is disqualified from testifying as such concerning the offense of gaming, on the ground that such testimony may criminate himself; but no prosecution can afterwards be had against him for any offense concerning which he testified." Pen.Code, § 334.”
    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.