Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 CALAPPSUPP2D 854 - People v. Thompson

People v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 1981
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1981

12 state decisions

601956196019701980decided

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 45 Cal. 2d 776 - People v. Gorg · People v. Scofield · People v. Dutra · Ætna Life Insurance v. Davey · Matter of Palmer v. Spaulding

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

  1. ““ ‘ “Addicted” is not a word of art. It is not a technical word at all. According to the lexicographers, it means strongly disposed to some taste or practice or habituated, especially to drugs. But resort to dictionaries in situations like that now before us has for some reason been judicially deprecated at times and so we go on to the ease law where occasions for defining the word “addicted” have often occurred in the course of controversies respecting applications for insurance. Thus in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Davey ( 123 U.S. 739, 742 [ 8 S.Ct. 331 , 31 L.Ed. 315 ]) the court said: “The inquiry as to whether the insured had ever been addicted to the excessive or intemperate use of alcoholic stimulants, and, whether, at the time of the application, he used alcoholic stimulants ‘ often or daily’ was, in effect, an inquiry as to his habit in that regard; not whether he used such stimulants or opium at all, but whether he used any of them habitually. If he was addicted to the excessive use of them, he was habitually intemperate; and to use them often or daily is, according to the ordinary acceptation of those words, to use them habitually.” Law writers ascribe to “addicted” the same significance. Mr. Appleman says: “After all, a man is either temperate or intemperate, and in common parlance, a man is not intemperate unless he frequently drinks to excess. Even more elastic is the word ‘addicted.’ This, also in layman’s language, means a slave to.” ’ ” 2”
    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.