Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 Cal. 3d 845 - People v. Smith

17 Cal. 3d 845 - People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
6
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

101 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 22 Cal. 3d 67 - People v. Cook (1978), 49 Cal. 3d 74 - City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989)

101 state decisions

61019761980199020002010decided

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 Aguilar v. Texas · 12 Cal. 3d 731 - People v. Hill · 5 Cal. 3d 357 - People v. Krivda · People v. Hamilton · California v. Krivda

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

  1. ““a citizen who purports to be the victim of or to have been the witness of a crime who is motivated by good citizenship and acts openly in aid of law enforcement. [Citations.] It is reasonable for police officers to act upon the reports of such an observer of criminal activity. [Citations.] [¶] A ‘citizen-informant’ is distinguished from a mere informer who gives a tip to law enforcement officers that a person is engaged in the course of criminal conduct. [Citations.] Thus, experienced stool pigeons or persons criminally involved or disposed are not regarded as ‘citizen-informants’ because they are generally motivated by something other than good citizenship. [Citations.]””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “and that the affidavit must also affirmatively set forth the circumstances from which the status of the named informant as a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the affidavit must allege the informant's statement in language that is factual rather than conclusionary and must establish that the informant spoke with personal knowledge of the matters contained in such statement; and (2) the affidavit must contain some underlying factual information from which the magistrate issuing the warrant can reasonably conclude that the informant was credible or his information reliable.”
    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.