In Re McVickers’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 220 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 232 later decisions — most recently February 2000 · most notably 10 Cal. 3d 857 - In Re Yurko (1974), 44 Cal. 3d 343 - People v. Guerrero (1988)
6 federal appellate · 220 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · 19 Cal. 2d 488 - In Re Bell · 16 Cal. 2d 701 - In Re Connor · People v. McKenna · In Re Byrnes
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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]very person who has been convicted in any other state, government, country, or jurisdiction of an offense for which, if committed within this state, such person could have been punished under the laws of this state by imprisonment in a state prison, is punishable for any subsequent crime committed within this state in the manner prescribed by law and to the same extent as if such prior conviction had taken place in a court of this state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The extent of the growth of the function of habeas corpus collaterally to attack judgments of conviction in the state is illustrated by comparing with recent decisions (e. g., In re Connor (1940), 16 Cal.2d 701, 712 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; In re Bell (1942), 19 Cal.2d 488 [ 122 P.2d 22 ], and cases there cited; In re Byrnes (1945), 26 Cal.2d 824, 827 [ 161 P.2d 376 ]) the case of Ex parte Max (1872), 44 Cal. 579, 581 , which pointed out the ‘obvious dictinction between the office of a writ of error or an appeal, on the one hand, and a writ of habeas corpus upon the other. ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Seeley · In Re Burns“criminal statutes will not be built up 'by judicial grafting upon legislation. ... [I]t is also true that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute.' [Citations.]”
2 later decisions 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.