35 Cal. 4th 40 - In Re Hawthorne’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 41 Cal. 4th 825 - People v. Sandoval (2007), 55 Cal. 4th 262 - People v. Caballero (2012)
5 federal appellate · 37 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 Atkins v. Virginia · Penry v. Lynaugh · People v. Carpenter · 9 Cal. 4th 464 - People v. Duvall · 2 Cal. 3d 870 - In Re Hochberg
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With respect to the intellectual prong of [California’s mental retardation statute], respondent Attorney General urges the court to adopt an IQ of 70 as the upper limit for making a prima facie showing. We decline to do so for several reasons: First, unlike some states, the California Legislature has chosen not to include a numerical IQ score as part of the definition of mentally retarded. [47] ... Moreover, statutes referencing a numerical IQ generally provide that a defendant is presumptively mentally retarded at or below that level, rather than — as respondent impliedly argues— that a defendant is presumptively not mentally retarded above it. Second, a fixed cutoff is inconsistent with established clinical definitions and fails to recognize that significantly subaverage intellectual functioning may be established by means other than IQ testing. Experts also agree that an IQ score below 70 may be anomalous as to an individual’s intellectual functioning and not indicative of mental impairment. Finally, IQ test scores are insufficiently precise to utilize a fixed cutoff in this context.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a question of fact ... 'not measured according to a fixed intelligence test score or a specific adaptive behavior deficiency, but rather constitutes an assessment of the individual's overall capacity based on a consideration of all the relevant evidence.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“; see generally Supreme Court Policies Regarding Cases Arising from Judgments of Death, Policy 3 (2001 ed.) [so designating]; e.g., In re Hawthorne (2005) 35 Cal.4th 40 , 47, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 , 105 P.3d 552 .) Proposition 66 changed the law by declaring a new,”
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.