152 Cal. App. 4th 263 - People v. Parrish’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Davis v. Washington · Lilly v. Virginia · Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed. [Citation.] Thus, if a party's oral admissions have been introduced in evidence, he [or she] may show other portions of the same interview or conversation, even if they are self-serving, which 'have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission ... in evidence.' [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is sometimes referred to as the statutory version of the common-law rule of completeness. [Citation.] According to the common-law rule: ' "[T]he opponent, against whom a part of an utterance has been put in, may in his [or her] turn complement it by putting in the remainder, in order to secure for the tribunal a complete understanding of the total tenor and effect of the utterance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is sometimes referred to as the statutory version of the common-law rule of completeness. [Citation.] According to the common-law rule: '”
2 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.