In Re Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 146 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Peyton v. Rowe (1968), Neal v. State of California (1960)
5 federal appellate · 146 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles · 30 Cal. 2d 589 - People v. Greer · In Re Dixon · People v. Chessman · In Re McVickers
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he one act of inflicting force with the bat cannot both be punished as assault with a deadly weapon and availed of by the People as the force necessary to constitute the crime of robbery . . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Brown · Newell v. State“[6] The applicability of section 654 depends upon whether a separate and distinct act can be established as the basis of each conviction. [Citation.] Multiple convictions have been affirmed in cases in which separate and divisible acts have been proved as the basis of each conviction even though those acts were closely connected in time and were part of the same criminal venture. [Citations.] [7] It is only when the two offenses are committed by the same act or when that act is essential to both that they may not both be punished. [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the force relied upon to establish the robbery is the same which is required to prove the assault, then petitioner is being punished twice for the same act contrary to section 654 of the Penal Code, but if it is not the same then the two convictions and sentences can stand.”
2 later decisions 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.