16 Cal. 3d 752 - People v. Jaramillo’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 159 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably 33 Cal. 3d 115 - People v. Barrick (1982), 21 Cal. 4th 846 - People v. Allen (1999)
14 federal appellate · 159 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 Heflin v. United States · Milanovich v. United States · 12 Cal. 3d 731 - People v. Hill · 8 Cal. 3d 625 - People v. Beamon · United States v. Gaddis
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a fundamental principle that one may not be convicted of stealing and of receiving the same property. [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The defendant is charged in Count — with grand theft. Every person who steals, takes or drives away the automobile of another with the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property is guilty of grand theft regardless of the value of the automobile. “The defendant is charged in Count — with a violation of Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code which provides that any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with the specific intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of his title to or possession of such vehicle, is guilty of a public offense. “The distinction between the offenses is in the type of specific intent required: “1. To constitute the crime of grand theft there must be a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. “2. To constitute a violation of Vehicle Code Section 10851 there must be a specific intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of his title to or possession of the vehicle. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When ... the record does not disclose or suggest what specific findings were made in convicting a defendant of a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 but it nevertheless appears that the fact finder may have found that the defendant intended to steal the vehicle, a second conviction based on a further finding that the defendant received that same stolen property is foreclosed. ( Id. at p. 759, 129 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 548 P.2d 706 , italics in original, fn. omitted.)”
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.