People v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2014 · most notably United States v. Bailey (1980), 43 Cal. App. 3d 823 - People v. Lovercamp (1974)
8 federal appellate · 52 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 66 Cal. 2d 606 - In Re Smiley · People v. Mathis · In Re Riddle · 177 Cal. App. 2d 84 - People v. Haskins · 100 Cal. App. 261 - People v. Whipple
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The compulsion from the harm or evil which the actor seeks to avoid, should be present and impending, as in the case of the threat or menace contemplated by the Penal Code. This is not a case where the prisoner departed from the limits of his custody while pursued by those who would take his life because he ‘snitched,’ or by those who sought by force and violence to have him: submit-.to sodomy. Moreover, any and. all alternative courses should be. considered, and it must be determined that the threatened consequences could not .otherwise be avoided.” . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When the defendant went beyond the prison walls without permission of the authorities he unlawfully departed from the limits of his custody, and it is immaterial that he did not get entirely beyond the territory connected with the prison grounds. It was his duty to remain within the walls as he very well knew, and when he transcended these limits he necessarily `violated his lawful custody.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The principle of justification by necessity, if applicable, involves a determination that `the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.' * * * The compulsion from the harm or evil which the actor seeks to avoid, should be present and impending * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Green
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.