33 Cal. 3d 623 - People v. Crowson’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 222 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 7 Cal. 4th 1 - Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994), 38 Cal. 3d 301 - People v. Castro (1985)
3 federal appellate · 222 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. § 371
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · McCarthy v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Barrett v. United States
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In De Lancie we held that [Penal Code] sections 2600 and 2601 accord prison inmatesand, by necessary implication, jail detaineesa statutory right to privacy in prisons and jails that may not be abridged except `to provide for the reasonable security of the institution ... and for the reasonable protection of the public'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] prior conviction of a particular felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense which includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined under California law....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`if, as we have concluded, proof of an overt act was not a required element of the federal offense, the allegations to which the People refer were entirely immaterial surplusage, and defendant would have had no reason or incentive to contest them in the federal proceeding. In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding.... If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establishing that such an act occurred, regardless of the allegations of the charging pleading....'”
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.