Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Cal. 4th 86 - People v. Hardy

2 Cal. 4th 86 - People v. Hardy’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

330
cited by 330 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 299 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 330 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Tuilaepa v. California (1994), 10 Cal. 4th 764 - People v. Stanley (1995)

23 federal appellate · 299 state decisions

1330199220002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 753

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Griffin v. California · Cuyler v. Sullivan

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

  1. “(1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) immediately thereafter, a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once independent proof of a conspiracy has been shown, three preliminary facts must be established: '(1) that the declarant was participating in a conspiracy at the time of the declaration; (2) that the declaration was in furtherance of the objective of that conspiracy; and (3) that at the time of the declaration the party against whom the evidence is offered was participating or would later participate in the conspiracy.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`Under Witt , therefore, our duty is to "examine the context surrounding [the juror's] exclusion to determine whether the trial court's decision that [the juror's] beliefs would `substantially impair the performance of his duties ...' was fairly supported by the record.”
    2 later decisions 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.