Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Cal. 3d 612 - People v. Wagner

13 Cal. 3d 612 - People v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 43 Cal. 3d 171 - People v. Ledesma (1987), 16 Cal. 3d 211 - People v. Rist (1976)

7 federal appellate · 117 state decisions

43019751980199020002010decided

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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Michelson v. United States · Brown v. United States · 6 Cal. 3d 441 - People v. Beagle · 63 Cal. 2d 779 - People v. Smith

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

  1. “suggest[] to the jurors that the prosecutor had a source of information unknown to them which corroborated the truth of the matters in question. The rule is ... that the prosecuting attorney may not interrogate witnesses solely `for the purpose of getting before the jury the facts inferred therein, together with the insinuations and suggestions they inevitably contained, rather than for the answers which might be given. [Citations.]'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Subject to Section 788, [concerning prior felony convictions] evidence of specific instances of his conduct relevant only as tending to prove a trait of his character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “when the defendant ... has injected the issue of his good moral character into the case by direct testimony, the prosecution may rebut by introducing evidence of the defendant's bad moral character”
    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.