People v. Earle’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2021
4 federal appellate · 9 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 25 Cal. 3d 668 - People v. Flannel · 8 Cal. 3d 410 - In Re Lynch · 11 Cal. 3d 738 - People v. Thornton · 7 Cal. 4th 380 - People v. Ewoldt · 15 Cal. 4th 1229 - People v. Bradford
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hile insult is a common feature of the paradigmatic indecent exposure [under § 314], it is not a necessary element of the crime. A purpose of affronting the victim may satisfy part of the mens rea, but it is not necessary; the crime is also complete if the defendant acts for purposes of his own or the victim’s (presumably imagined) arousal or gratification, whether or not he intends to cause affront or believes he is doing so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nunez v. Holder“`[r]eaching a conclusion that offenses are signature crimes requires a comparison of the degree of distinctiveness of shared marks with the common or minimally distinctive aspects of each crime.'”
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.