Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 Cal. App. 713 - Irwin v. Murphy

129 Cal. App. 713 - Irwin v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
8
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Application of United Electrical, Radio & M. Workers (1953), 44 Cal. 3d 1162 - McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988)

27 state decisions

10019331940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Gosewisch v. Doran · Turpen v. Booth · In re Gannon · Going v. Dinwiddie · Ex parte Sternes

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

  1. ““As a matter of routine, if nothing further, the power to investigate includes as an integral part thereof the right and duty to report the result of such investigation. The duty of a grand jury is to protect the citizen against unfounded accusation. Matter of Tyler, supra [ 64 Cal. 434 , 1 P. 884 ]. Such a duty, coupled with the power of investigation, almost demands completeness of disclosure on matters investigated. It seems futile to attempt demonstration of the obvious. Law and common sense combine to compel the conclusion that, if a grand jury is authorized and bounden to inquire of public offense, a necessary element of this power must be the power and duty to disclose the result of the inquiry. * * * “* * * Given a homicide, the grand jury upon investigation must find whether or not a public offense had been committed. They were compelled, under the statute, to hear and consider evidence which would explain the death. What an inane and lifeless body a grand jury would be if the limit of its power in case no indictment were returned were complete silence or a formal report of two words— ‘charge ignored.’ Without further discussion, we conclude that the report before us did not involve any person or subject beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry.””
    3 later decisions 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.