People v. Lim’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 state decisions

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

1. ““It has been recognized that the tendency to utilize the equity injunction as a means of enforcing public policy is a relatively recent development in the law. (Mack, ‘Revival of Criminal Equity’, (1903) 16 Harv. L. Rev. 389 , 392; (1913) 8 Ill. L. Rev. 19; MeClin-tock, supra, p. 286). Courts have held that public and social interests, as well as the rights of property, are entitled to the protection of equity. (Cf. People v. Laman, 277 N.Y. 368 [14 N.E. (2d) 439, 443]; State v. Compere, 44 N.M. 414 [ 103 Pac. (2d) 273, 276 ];(1924) 13 Cal. L. Rev. 63 .) This development has resulted in a continuous expansion of the field of public nuisances in which equitable relief is available at the request of the state. It has been held, for example, that the legislature may properly define the term ‘public nuisance’ for the purposes of an equity injunction so as to include activity which was not a nuisance at common law or activity which offends concepts of public policy even though no rights of property are involved. (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 [8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 ]; and People v. Barbiere, 33 Cal. App. 770 [ 166 Pac. 812 ]; see, 28 Am. Jur. 338 , 5 A.L.R. 1474 ; 22 A.L.R. 542 ; 75 A.L.R. 1298 .) Where a particular activity, such as gambling or horse.-raeing, has been held to come within the language of a statute defining the term ‘public nuisance’ for the purposes of equity jurisdiction on behalf of the state, «courts have granted injunctions, or indicated that they wou”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Escambrón Beach Club, Inc. · 17 Cal. 3d 42 - People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater

2. “Conduct against which injunctions are sought in behalf of the public is frequently criminal in nature. While this alone will not prevent the intervention of equity where a clear case justifying equitable relief is present [citations], it is apparent that the equitable remedy has the collateral effect of depriving a defendant of the jury trial to which he would be entitled in a criminal prosecution for violating exactly the same standards of public policy. [Citations.] The defendant also loses the protection of the higher burden of proof required in criminal prosecutions and, after imprisonment and fine for violation of the equity injunction, may be subjected under the criminal law to similar punishment for the same acts. For these reasons equity is loath to interfere where the standards of public policy can be enforced by resort to the criminal law, and in the absence of a legislative declaration to that effect, the courts should not broaden the field in which injunctions against criminal activity will be granted. Thus, ... the basis for an action such as this must be found in our statutes rather than by reference to the common law definitions of public nuisance.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Cal. 5th 1121 - Leider v. Lewis · 17 Cal. 3d 42 - People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater

3. “However, The suppression of nuisances injurious to the public health or morality is among the most important duties of government. The state, in the exercise of its police power, has authority to abate nuisances, and under this power, and subject to constitutional limitations, the legislature has authority to declare what shall be deemed nuisances and to provide for their suppression. Since “nuisance” is a term which does not have a fixed content, either at common law or at the present time, compelling reasons of policy require that the responsibility for establishing those standards of public morality, the violation of which is to constitute nuisances within equity jurisdiction, be left to the legislature.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Haw. App. 463 - Marsland v. Pang · 17 Cal. 3d 42 - People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater