27 Cal. 3d 532 - Olson v. Cory’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 143 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 35 Cal. 3d 390 - Olson v. Cory (1983), 54 Cal. 3d 492 - Legislature v. Eu (1991)
8 federal appellate · 143 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 19 Cal. 3d 182 - Solberg v. Superior Court · Evans v. Gore · 24 Cal. 3d 514 - People v. Tanner · 18 Cal. 3d 808 - Miller v. State of California · 23 Cal. 3d 296 - Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]alaries of elected state officers may not be reduced during their term of office. Laws that set these salaries are appropriations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]t was the absence from salary statutes of vested rights to compensation-for services not yet rendered that necessitated the constitutional prohibition of reductions in elected officers’ salaries during their terms of office____ It is neither necessary nor fitting for this court to add to that constitutional protection a judicially contrived right, purportedly contractual, that is not enjoyed by the thousands of other public officers and employees who serve indefinite tenures. ... It is one thing to insist, as the Constitution does, that a present salary, once established, may not be reduced during a judge’s term of office; it is another to argue that a legislative experiment to find a better mechanism for setting judicial salaries has been transmuted into an irreversible economic grant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... [o]n the effective date of the 1969 amendments to this section and on September 1 of each year thereafter the salary of each justice and judge named in Sections 68200 and 68202, inclusive, shall be increased by that amount which is produced by multiplying the then current salary of each justice or judge by the percentage by which the figure representing the California consumer price index as compiled and reported by the California Department of Industrial Relations has increased in the previous calendar year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.