Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 Cal. 4th 436 - People v. Engelman

28 Cal. 4th 436 - People v. Engelman’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 52 Cal. 4th 856 - People v. Clark (2011), 44 Cal. 4th 758 - People v. Wilson (2008)

7 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

600200220102020decided

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 United States v. Nixon · Clark v. United States · 14 Cal. 4th 668 - People v. Mayfield · 46 Cal. 3d 478 - People v. Keenan · United States v. McVeigh

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

  1. “The integrity of a trial requires that jurors, at all times during their deliberations, conduct themselves as required by these instructions. Accordingly, should it occur that any juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide that case based on penalty or punishment, or any other improper basis, it is the obligation of the other jurors to immediately advise the court of the situation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Although jurors have no right to refuse to deliberate or to disregard the law in reaching their decision, we believe the instruction has the potential to intrude unnecessarily on the deliberative process and affect it adversely—both with respect to the freedom of jurors to express their differing views during deliberations, and the proper receptivity they should accord the views of their fellow jurors.”
    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.