Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 182 Colo. 148 - People v. Paris

People v. Paris’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
3
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably 42 Colo. App. 512 - People v. Lincoln (1979), State v. Gartner (2002)

42 state decisions

14019731980199020002010decided

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 Noble v. People · Burns v. People · Rodriguez v. People

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

  1. “Where ... the owner testifies only to the purchase price of the goods, such testimony is competent evidence of fair market value only where the goods are so new, and thus, have depreciated in value so insubstantially, as to allow a reasonable inference that the purchase price is comparable to current fair market value.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Without competent evidence of fair market value, the jury would have had to base its determination of the value of the goods in question at the critical time on pure speculation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Tjo justify submission of a case to the jury, the People must introduce competent evidence going to each and every element of the crime charged.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.