People v. Teitelbaum’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably 58 Cal. 2d 601 - Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd. (1962), 48 Cal. 3d 1046 - People v. Bittaker (1989)
3 federal appellate · 96 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Upshaw v. United States
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at every step of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this rule. The defendant’s absence without cause shall not preclude proceeding with the trial including the return of the verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant further charges that the court erred in defining “attempt” and instructing the jury that a person who conspires to commit grand theft is guilty of a crime, and that a person who conspires to attempt grand theft, is guilty of a crime. Appellant asserts that there is no such crime as conspiracy to attempt grand theft. We do not agree. A conspiracy to commit grand theft is inherently one to attempt that crime. If the conspirators are successful in accomplishing the object of the conspiracy, they have committed grand theft. If they are not successful, they have committed the crime of attempted grand theft.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevenson v. State““ * * * presence would be useless or the benefit but a shadow. * * * So far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fernald
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.