People v. Studley’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
August 2001
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 234 Cal. App. 3d 56 - People v. Sullivan · 197 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 26 - People v. Difiore · 13 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1 - People v. Goulet · People v. Goodrich
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A ‘speed trap’ is either of the following: [1Q . . . HD “(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit. . . under . . . Section 22352, or . . . under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified . . . , and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar . . .” (Veh. Code, § 40802, subd. (a), italic added.) (The full text of the section is set forth in the appendix, post.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Singh“[A]fter a close reading of the statutes in question, we find the Legislature's antipathy toward any radar-based prosecution of any speed law violation in any posted zone, where the prima facie speed limit is not justified by proof of a timely engineering survey, is absolute and unequivocal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Singh
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.