33 Cal. 3d 189 - In Re Pipinos’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Honey Springs Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of Supervisors (1984), 168 Cal. App. 3d 731 - People v. Barbarick (1985)
39 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (Bail Reform Act of 1984)
Relies on Kent v. United States · 11 Cal. 3d 506 - Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELES · Mercer v. Perez · 3 Cal. 3d 16 - In Re William M. · 6 Cal. 3d 484 - People v. Medina
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'substantial flight risk,' " represented " 'some risk to society,' " and did not have a " 'substantial likelihood of success on appeal.' " The Supreme Court found these comments did not promote the "goal of ensuring that judges engage in careful and reasoned decisionmaking. Once defendant came forward with evidence in support of his application for release ... the court was duty-bound to articulate its evaluative process and show how it weighed the evidence presented in light of the applicable standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“identify[ing] the specific facts which persuaded the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not expressly state that there is a probability that defendant will continue to engage in criminal conduct. Instead, the court obliquely refers to defendant's 'basic character flaws,' and bases its conclusion of danger to society on the fact that there is no evidence of a 'metamorphosis.' We may conceivably infer that the court found, based on its assessment of defendant's character, that it was unlikely that defendant would forego his profitable trafficking in controlled substances. However, a primary purpose of the Podesto requirement of a statement is precisely to prevent this type of speculative judicial second-guessing, especially when, as here, we are asked to draw inferences as to inferences the trial court might have drawn.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Humphrey
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.