45 Cal. 3d 867 - People v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably 7 Cal. 4th 380 - People v. Ewoldt (1994), 18 Cal. 4th 770 - In Re Robbins (1998)
4 federal appellate · 155 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 Faretta v. California · Harris v. New York · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Hill v. United States · Enmund v. Florida
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the doctrine of chances the instinctive recognition of that logical process which eliminates the element of innocent intent by multiplying instances of the same result until it is perceived that this element cannot explain them all. Without formulating any accurate test, and without attempting by numerous instances to secure absolute certainty of inference, the mind applies this rough and instinctive process of reasoning, namely, that an unusual and abnormal element might perhaps be present in one instance, but that the oftener similar instances occur with similar results, the less likely is the abnormal element likely to be the true explanation of them.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he sentencing phase of a capital trial ... specifically provides for such testimony. The defendant is allowed to present evidence as well as take the stand and address the sentencer. Given this, we fail to see the need, much less a constitutional requirement, for a corresponding right to address the sentencer without being subject to cross-examination in capital cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Green v. French“'depends upon three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.' [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Moore
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.