Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 CALAPP 537 - Williams v. Bridges

Williams v. Bridges’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably 41 Cal. 3d 564 - Ballard v. Uribe (1986), 71 Cal. 2d 342 - People v. Hutchinson (1969)

63 state decisions

200193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Clark v. United States · People v. Galloway · Kimic v. San Jose-Los Gatos Interurban Ry. · Earl v. Times-Mirror Co. · Sherwin v. Southern Pacific Co.

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

  1. “We think that People v. Fair, supra [ 43 Cal. 137 ], omits the recognition of a well-defined distinction which exists between a case where a juror was not interrogated upon the subject, or where he admitted his bias and expressed the belief that he could lay it aside, and a case where a juror concealed his prejudiced state of mind when examined on his voir dire and entered upon the discharge of his duty as such juror while in such mental condition. In the second instance, actual bias becomes, where concealed, positive misconduct and continues to be such throughout such juror's service on the case, and if such misconduct is not known to the accused until after the trial and verdict, we see no reason whatsoever why the court should not have power to grant to the accused a new trial, basing it upon said subdivision 3 of section 1181 of the Penal Code.”
    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.