People v. Narron’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 226 - People v. Birkett (1999), 6 Cal. 4th 952 - People v. Crow (1993)
1 federal appellate · 39 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3651
Relies on Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers · Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · 15 Cal. 3d 481 - People v. Lent · Fuller v. Oregon
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.
““We first note as a general proposition that restitution is not necessarily limited to persons. Neither Penal Code section 1203.1 nor section 1203.04 defines the term ‘victim.’ However, the policies of these provisions favor a definition which includes the government where it suffered loss flowing from a defendant’s criminal conduct. Including the government as a potential ‘victim’ accords with the court’s discretion to employ probation conditions which ensure ‘that amends ... be made to society for the breach of the law, . . .’ (Pen. Code, § 1203.1.) Moreover, the concept of restitution embodies not only the notion that people who suffer loss as a result of criminal activity should be compensated for those losses (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)), but also a perception of the value of restitution as a ‘deterrent to future criminality’ [citation], and ‘to rehabilitate the criminal.’ [Citation.] Both aims are furthered by imposing a restitution condition in appropriate cases whether or not the victim is an individual. We therefore agree with the dictum that ‘[t]he government may be the beneficiary of [restitution] if it has incurred actual loss due to the crime, as in the instance of tax evasion or theft of government property, . . .’ [Citations.] “It also appears that Lake County could be considered a ‘victim’ of appellant’s criminal activity. While the county was not a direct victim as in the case of tax fraud or theft of government property, restitution is not limited ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he policies of these provisions [(Pen. Code, §§ 1203.1, 1203.04)] favor a definition which includes the government where it suffered loss flowing from a defendant's criminal conduct. Including the government as a potential `victim' accords with the court's discretion to employ probation conditions which ensure `that amends ... be made to society for the breach of the law, ...' (Pen. Code, § 1203.1.) Moreover, the concept of restitution embodies not only the notion that people who suffer loss as a result of criminal activity should be compensated for those losses (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)), but also a perception of the value of restitution as a `deterrent to future criminality' ( People v. Lent [1975] 15 Cal.3d [481,] 486 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]), and `to rehabilitate the criminal.' ( People v. Richards [1976] 17 Cal.3d [614,] 620 [ 131 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 552 P.2d 97 ].) Both aims are furthered by imposing a restitution condition in appropriate cases whether or not the victim is an individual. We therefore agree with the dictum that `[t]he government may be the beneficiary of [restitution] if it has incurred actual loss due to the crime, as in the instance of tax evasion or theft of government property, ...' ( People v. Baker (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 550, 559 [ 113 Cal. Rptr. 248 ]; People v. Burnett (1978) 86 Cal. App.3d 320, 322 [ 150 Cal. Rptr. 126 ].)”
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.