16 Cal. 3d 690 - People v. Ruster’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 209 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 99 - People v. James (1977), 30 Cal. 3d 1 - Landrum v. Superior Court (1981)
4 federal appellate · 209 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Wade · Aguilar v. Texas · United States v. Ventresca
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prosecution under a general statute is precluded by a special statute when the general statute covers the same matter as, and thus conflicts with, the special statute. ( People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 [ 82 Cal. Rptr. 724 , 462 P.2d 580 ]; In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, 654 [ 276 P.2d 593 ].) However, a special statute does not supplant a general statute unless all of the elements of the general statute are included in the special statute. (See People v. Gilbert, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 480 ; People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582 [ 51 Cal. Rptr. 255 , 414 P.2d 353 ]; People v. Barrowclough (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 50, 55 [ 113 Cal. Rptr. 852 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the Legislature unquestionably contemplated that the special statute might be violated by means of forgery. Indeed, applying for aid under a false identity, which entails signing eligibility questionnaires and pay certification cards with a false name, is apparently one of the most common forms of unemployment insurance fraud.”
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.