Gillespie v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018
21 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 87 Cal. App. 482 - People v. Jones · State v. Evans · The People v. Donovan · State v. Mitchell · State v. Ellis
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . .A policy designed to deny defendant a suspended sentence solely because he demanded a jury trial is contrary to law and an unjustifiable denial of defendant’s rights to have his application for a suspended sentence considered upon its merits. “In considering the application for suspension, the court must consider among other things, the showing made as to whether the defendant is a first offender, as to his previous character, and actions- and as to whether it reasonably appears that defendant will abide by the terms of his probation and may be reasonably expected to be compatible with society and . likewise consider society’s interest. . . ” 355 P.2d at 456”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cavaness v. State · Boles v. State““3. Identification of the defendant at a police lineup prior to trial and subsequent to the alleged crime is not an identification of the defendant as the one who committed the robbery, but testimony of an extra-judicial identification and is inadmissible as original testimony. 4. Failure of the defendant to object to the introduction of testimony and lengthy cross-examination relative to an extrajudicial identification may take the same out of the category of reversible error but if it appears that defendant was prejudiced thereby, will constitute grounds for modification.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fink v. State · Cothrum v. State““A defendant must either plead guilty or have been found guilty by a jury before the question of probation can arise. To deny defendant the right to have his application considered because he asked for and received a jury trial is not sanctioned by law and is an improper denial and deprives defendant of a statutory right contrary to all concepts of the law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. BARNES v. STATE · Jones v. State
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.