In Re Lindley’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 160 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Neal v. State of California (1960), In Re Dixon (1953)
15 federal appellate · 160 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 Mooney v. Holohan · People v. Reid · 16 Cal. 2d 701 - In Re Connor · 28 Cal. 2d 91 - In Re Porterfield · Sanders v. State
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]ewly discovered evidence does not justify relief unless it is of such character as will completely undermine the entire structure of the case upon which the prosecution was based.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“completely undermines the entire structure of the case presented by the prosecution at the time of the conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This restricted scope of the writ of coram nobis has been recognized by the California courts. As stated in People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249, 256 [ 232 P. 457 , 36 A.L.R. 1435 ] (quoting from Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 [ 44 Am.Rep. 29 ]) : ‘ “It is our opinion that the courts have the power to issue writs in the nature of the writ coram nobis, but that the writ cannot be so comprehensive as at common law, for remedies are given by onr statute which did not exist at common law—the motion for a new trial and the right of appeal—and these very materially abridge the office and functions of the old writ. These afford an accused ample opportunity to present for review questions of fact, arising upon or prior to the trial, as well as questions of law; while at common law the writ of error allowed him to present to the appellate court only questions of law. Under our system all matters of fact reviewable by appeal, or upon motion, must be presented by motion for a new trial, and cannot be made the grounds of an application for the writ coram nobis. Within this rule must fall the defense of insanity as well as all other defenses existing at the time of the commission of the crime. Within this rule, too, must fall all cases of accident and surprise, of verdicts against evidence, of newly discovered evidence, and all like matters.” ’ (Quoted with approval in People v. Lumbley, 8 Cal.2d 752, 759 [ 68 P.2d 354 ]; People v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 136, 149 [ 47 P.2d 724 ].) ””
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.