In Re Basuino’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 1977 · most notably 47 Cal. 2d 45 - People v. Burke (1956), 52 Cal. 2d 250 - In Re Tartar (1959)
49 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
Relies on In Re Boatwright · People v. Terrill · In re Ring · 137 Cal. App. 385 - People v. Rhodes · People v. Noland
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘1 The petitioner . . . admitted the prior conviction of felony and pleaded guilty to the substantive offense as charged, thereby establishing irrefragably his liability to sentence for the offense as aggravated (for term of imprisonment) by the prior conviction. . . . “The foregoing recitals evidence an arraignment obviously sufficient to warrant the pronouncement of a judgment carrying the ten year maximum; i. e., for violation of the State Narcotic Act, with one prior conviction of a felony, but the judgment itself as actually pronounced was silent as to the prior conviction of felony. . . . “. . . The court was not required to adjudicate any fact not in issue. (People v. Rhodes (1934), 137 Cal.App. 385, 389 [ 30 P.2d 1026 ].) The specific charges of the several informations, coupled with the defendant’s admission of the prior conviction and pleas of guilty of the substantive offenses, definitely establish ‘of what offense the defendant .was finally convicted.’””
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.