People v. Rawlings’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably 47 Cal. 3d 195 - Williams v. City of Los Angeles (1988), People v. Adams (1976)
59 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 12 Cal. 3d 641 - People v. Hitch · 70 Cal. 2d 123 - People v. Superior Court · People v. Valenti · 32 Cal. App. 3d 971 - People v. Brannon · 4 Cal. App. 3d 123 - People v. Curtiss
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of appeal is purely statutory. The order of `suppression' was not itself directly appealable as no such appeal is authorized. (Pen. Code, § 1466 [appeals from inferior courts].) There is no statutory provision (except for Pen. Code, § 1538.5 ) for the obtaining of pretrial rulings on evidentiary questions and the appellate review of such rulings. Neither mandamus nor prohibition will lie to resolve an issue as to admissibility of evidence ( People v. Municipal Court ( Ahnemann ) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 658 .) The parties may not by agreement or stipulation create an appellate proceeding which is not authorized by statute. While such a procedure may be an improvement over the present system, it is for the Legislature to create and not this court. [¶] We hold that if the parties voluntarily participate in such an informal pretrial proceeding the prosecution in the face of an adverse ruling has two options available: [¶] (1) Proceed to trial and press for a reversal of the ruling by the trial judge, or [¶] (2) Accept the ruling of the trial judge and request a dismissal which would be nonappealable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Yarbrough
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.