People v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably People v. Zambia (2011), People v. Hashimoto (1976)
25 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 People v. Montgomery · People v. Frey · People v. Mitchell · 218 Cal. App. 2d 812 - People v. Charles · 20 Cal. App. 3d 481 - People v. Lax
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]uccess is not a necessary element of the offense proscribed by the word `encourage' as used in subdivision (b) of section 266i.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Considering subdivision (a)(2) in the context of the other provisions of the statute reveals that the intent and purpose behind section 266i, subdivision (a)(2) is to prohibit a person from encouraging a prostitute to work under his aegis or that of someone else, regardless whether the target being solicited is already a working prostitute. “Subdivision (a) contains six subparts. As noted, subdivision (a)(2), proscribes conduct that ‘[b]y promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuades, or encourages another person to become a prostitute.’ (§ 266i, subd. (a)(2).) “Subdivision (a)(1) criminalizes the ‘[p]rocur[ing of] another person for the purpose of prostitution.’ (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) Whether taken literally or figuratively, there is no reason to conclude the term ‘another person’ as used in subdivision (a)(1) would not encompass both prostitutes and nonprostitutes, as either can plainly be ‘procured’ for the purpose of prostitution. “Subdivision (a)(3) criminalizes ‘[p]rocur[ing] for another person a place as an inmate in a house of prostitution or as an inmate of any place in which prostitution is encouraged or allowed within this state.’ (§ 266i, subd. (a)(3), italics added.) Here again, the term ‘another person’ encompasses all persons, regardless of their current employment pursuits. “Subdivision (a)(4) criminalizes conduct that ‘[b]y promises, threats, violence, or by any device or scheme, causes, induces, persuade”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Zambia“Whether the female person procured for or encouraged to become an inmate of a house of ill-fame is `an innocent girl or a hardened prostitute of long experience' is immaterial to the issues raised by a charge of pandering.”
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.