42 Cal. 3d 471 - People v. Piper’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 9 Cal. 4th 493 - People v. Simon (1995), 17 Cal. 4th 448 - People v. Woodell (1998)
4 federal appellate · 71 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 2 Cal. 3d 619 - Keeler v. Superior Court · 37 Cal. 3d 826 - People v. Jackson · 18 Cal. 3d 232 - People v. Walker · 31 Cal. 3d 568 - People v. Cole · 42 Cal. 3d 456 - People v. Equarte
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Since Walker , the Legislature has been quite explicit when it intends an enhancement provision to apply to a defendant even though he himself does not commit the proscribed act. For example, section 12022, subdivision (a) which provides a one-year enhancement for `[a]ny person who is armed with a firearm in the commission . . . of a felony'goes on specifically to provide that `[t]his additional term shall apply to any person who is a principal in the commission or attempted commission of a felony if one or more of the principals is armed with a firearm, whether or not such person is personally armed with a firearm.' "Subdivision (c)(8), of course, contains no similar language indicating that it was intended to apply even when the defendant himself did not personally use a firearm. Accordingly, the principle of interpretation applied in Walker supports the conclusion that the subdivision should be construed to apply only to defendants who personally use a firearm in the commission of a felony. "Finally, even if the juxtaposition of the language of subdivision (c)(23) and subdivision (c)(8) creates some ambiguity as to the reach of subdivision (c)(8), under settled principles such ambiguity must properly be resolved in favor of the defendant. [Citation.]." ( People v. Piper (1986) 42 Cal.3d 471, 477 , 229 Cal.Rptr. 125 , 722 P.2d 899 , fn. omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in Section 12022.5, 12022.53, or 12022.55.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon.”
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.