23 Cal. 4th 853 - People v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably 31 Cal. 4th 1051 - People v. Lopez (2003), 41 Cal. 4th 50 - People v. Lancaster (2007)
7 federal appellate · 54 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 15 Cal. 4th 1 - People v. Marshall · 36 Cal. 3d 604 - People v. Alcala · 10 Cal. 3d 652 - People v. Stephenson · People v. Oliver · 119 Cal. App. 3d 392 - Parnell v. Superior Court
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n the usual case of carjacking involving multiple occupants, all are subjected to a threat of violence, all are exposed to the high level of risk which concerned the Legislature, and all are compelled to surrender their places in the vehicle and suffer a loss of transportation. All are properly deemed victims of the carjacking.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“carjacking is a particularly serious crime that victimizes persons in vulnerable settings and, because of the nature of the taking, raises a serious potential for harm to the victim ... and the public at large.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The analogy between robbery and carjacking is imperfect. Unlike robbery, which requires a taking from the person or immediate presence of the possessor (§ 211), the Legislature expanded the taking element to a taking from the person or immediate presence of either the possessor or any passenger. (§ 215, subd. (a).) By extending carjacking to include a taking from a passenger, even one without a possessory interest (assuming the other elements of the crime are present), the Legislature has made carjacking more nearly a crime against the person than a crime against property. Moreover, unlike a robbery, a carjacking subjects an unconscious possessor or occupant of a vehicle to a risk of harm greater than that involved in an ordinary theft from an unconscious individual.”
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.