32 Cal. 3d 236 - Brosnahan v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 253 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 276 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 45 Cal. 3d 727 - Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988), 37 Cal. 3d 873 - People v. Lance W. (1985)
15 federal appellate · 253 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 18 Cal. 3d 582 - Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore · 17 Cal. 3d 129 - Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley · 11 Cal. 3d 801 - Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Board · 22 Cal. 3d 208 - AMADOR VALLEY JT. UN. HIGH SCH. v. State Bd. of Equal. · Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization
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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to each other,' and to the general purpose or object of the initiative. [Citations.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“a common concern, 'general object' or 'general subject,' promoting the rights of actual or potential crime victims. ... [T]he 10 sections were designed to strengthen procedural and substantive safeguards for victims in our * criminal justice system. These changes were aimed at achieving more severe punishment for, and more effective deterrence of, criminal acts, protecting the public from the premature release into society of criminal offenders, providing safety from crime to a particularly vulnerable group of victims, namely school pupils and staff, and assuring restitution for the victims of criminal acts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“must be assumed to have voted intelligently upon an amendment to their organic law, the whole text of which was supplied each of them prior to the election, and which they must be assumed to have duly considered, regardless of any insufficient recitals in the instructions to voters or the arguments pro and con of its advocates or opponents accompanying the text of the proposed measure”
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.