Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Cal. App. 3d 749 - People v. Johnson

39 Cal. App. 3d 749 - People v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
3
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 2 Cal. 4th 408 - People v. Mincey (1992), 3 Cal. 4th 959 - People v. Hill (1992)

57 state decisions

24019741980199020002010decided

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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Barber v. Page · 55 Cal. 2d 27 - People v. Sweeney · Billeci v. United States · People v. Beivelman

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

  1. “[t]he party against whom the former testimony is offered was a party to the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive similar to that which he has at the [current] hearing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In establishing `due diligence' it is not enough to show that the witness has not been found, but there must be evidence of a substantial character to support the conclusion of due diligence. [Citations.] It contemplates something more than a desultory and indifferent search, but connotes persevering application and untiring efforts in good earnest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the interest and motive for the cross-examination of the prosecution witness at the preliminary hearing and at the trial are similar, notwithstanding that the cross-examination at the preliminary hearing may, by the very nature of that proceeding, be less reaching than at the trial.”
    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.