People v. Winters’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably 13 Cal. 3d 937 - People v. Orin (1975), 15 Cal. 3d 286 - Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975)
29 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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Snowden v. Hughes · Cannon v. United States · Turpin v. Warden of the Green Haven Prison · Ah Sin v. Wittman
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here there is no pretense that the order of the court recites the reasons upon which it was based. It is true the record shows the grounds upon which the motion was made by the district attorney, but nothing in the order shows that these grounds were, or any of them was, the basis for the action of the court.... [ถ] It is to be observed that this is no `technical' objection to the proceedings as the term `technical' is commonly understood, but it relates to an important rule of procedure which the legislature has provided for the guidance of the courts, and the omission to observe it cannot be held to be innocuous without an invasion of the authority of a co-ordinate branch of the government. If the practice of which complaint is made is to be continued, it is manifest that great abuse is likely to follow, more dangerous to society than even the acquittal of the guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An order for the dismissal of the action, made as provided in this chapter [which includes ง 1385], is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a misdemeanor, but not if it is a felony. " (Italics added.) (10) The question on review of such a dismissal order ordinarily is also whether under the circumstances the trial judge exceeded the bounds of judicial discretion. If there was such an abuse of discretion the order must be set aside. (See People v. Superior Court, 249 Cal. App.2d 714, 718 [ 57 Cal. Rptr. 892 ]; People v. Gonzales, 235 Cal. App.2d Supp. 887, 890 [ 46 Cal. Rptr. 301 ]; People v. Winters, 171 Cal. App.2d Supp. 876, 880-882 [ 342 P.2d 538 ].) Penal Code section 1385 reads as follows: "The court may, either of its own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed. The reasons of the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes. No dismissal shall be made for any cause which would be ground of demurrer to the accusatory pleading.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“requires that the minute order must set forth the reasons for the dismissal. We have no authority to disregard this requirement or to hold that it is merely directory. ( People v. Disperati, supra , 11 Cal.App. 469 , 476 .) Here, there is no pretense that the minute order of the court recited the reasons on which it was based. It is true the reporter's transcript shows the trial court's motivation for the action, but the minutes do not reflect the reasons why the dismissals were `in the interest of justice.'”
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.