Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Cal. 3d 284 - People v. Scott

21 Cal. 3d 284 - People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

153
cited by 153 later decisions
5
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 143 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 42 Cal. 3d 284 - People v. Barnes (1986), 44 Cal. 3d 713 - People v. Melton (1988)

4 federal appellate · 143 state decisions

72019781980199020002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · Chimel v. California · Schmerber v. State of California · Gilbert v. California

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

  1. ““Where the sole evidence of uncharged sexual conduct is the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix herself, it is inadmissible since it contributes nothing to a determination of her credibility on the charged offenses and is highly prejudicial. (People v. Stanley (1967) 67 Cal.2d 812, 817 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 433 P.2d 913 .) If, on retrial, prosecutrix’ testimony appears to be the only basis for a reading of CALJIC instruction No. 10.35, it should therefore not be given. Moreover, if the prosecution can offer no corroboration for her charge that defendant participated in the lewd conduct [the alleged lewd conduct other than the specific crime charged], all evidence concerning it should be excluded from any retrial.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he human body is not, of course, a sanctuary in which evidence may be concealed with impunity[,]... [a]ppropriate procedures to retrieve such evidence are neither `unreasonable' per se under the Fourth Amendment, nor violations of `due process' procedures guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Citations.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the issuing authority after finding probable cause to believe the intrusion will reveal [ material ] evidence, ... must apply an additional balancing test to determine whether the character of the requested search is appropriate....”
    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.