Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles

35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

566
cited by 566 later decisions
14
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 550 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 566 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Neal v. State of California (1960), 10 Cal. 3d 222 - Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (1973)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 550 state decisions — followed in 14 states

12501950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993)

Relies on Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. · McBoyle v. United States · Gooch v. United States · United States v. Fisher · 30 Cal. 2d 589 - People v. Greer

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 566 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the words of the statute are clear, the court should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[t]he court turns first to the words themselves for the answer. It may also properly rely on extrinsic aids.... Primarily, however, the words, in arrangement that superimposes the purpose of the Legislature upon their dictionary meaning, stand in immobilized sentry, reminders that whether their arrangement was wisdom or folly, it was wittingly undertaken and not to be disregarded. [¶] ... If the words of the statute are clear, the court should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. [Citations.] Certainly the court is not at liberty to seek hidden meanings not suggested by the statute or by the available extrinsic aids. [Citation.]”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““ ‘If a course of criminal conduct causes the commission of more than one offense, each of which can be committed without committing any other, the applicability of section 654 will depend upon whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each conviction, or whether a single act has been so committed that more than one statute has been violated.’ ””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.