Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 Cal. 3d 406 - Edwards v. Steele

25 Cal. 3d 406 - Edwards v. Steele’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

156
cited by 156 later decisions
4
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

156 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 10 Cal. 4th 1133 - California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n. v. State Personnel Board (1995), 42 Cal. 4th 91 - People v. Allen (2007)

156 state decisions

48019791980199020002010decided

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 18 Cal. 3d 901 - Morris v. County of Marin · 13 Cal. 3d 898 - City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper · 20 Cal. 3d 251 - Vella v. Hudgins · 66 Cal. 2d 34 - Russian Hill Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals · 29 Cal. 2d 258 - Pulcifer v. County of Alameda

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

  1. “deemed merely directory `unless a consequence or penalty is provided for failure to do the act within the time commanded.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`In some cases focus has been directed at the likely consequences of holding a particular [duty] mandatory, in an attempt to ascertain whether those consequences would defeat or promote the purpose of the enactment. [Citations.] Other cases have suggested that a [duty] is deemed merely directory "unless a consequence or penalty is provided for failure to do the act. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If the failure to comply with a particular procedural step does not invalidate the action ultimately taken ... the procedural requirement is referred to as 'directory.' If, on the other hand, it is concluded that noncompliance does invalidate subsequent action, the requirement is deemed 'mandatory.' [Citation.]”
    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.