Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 452 U.S. 105 - Minnick v. California Department of Corrections

Minnick v. California Department of Corrections’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably Illinois v. Gates (1983), Bender v. Williamsport Area School District (1986)

18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

5201981199020002010decided

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 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke · Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · United Steelworkers of America v. Weber · Fullilove v. Klutznick · Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles

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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Under California law, an appellate court reversal of a trial court decision has the effect of vacating the judgment and returning the case to the trial court for a new trial ‘as if no judgment had ever been rendered.’ See Erlin v. National Fire Ins. Co., 7 Cal.2d 547, 549 [ 61 P.2d 756 ] (1936); Salaman v. Bolt, 74 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 841, 844 (1977). Thus, the losing party on appeal may introduce additional evidence. See Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543, 547-548 , 67 S.Ct. 1428, 1430 , 91 L.Ed. 1662 , quoting Erlin, supra. Although this rule regarding new trials does not apply if the appellate court did not intend a new trial, Stromer v. Browning, 268 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 , 74 Cal.Rptr. 155, 158 (1968), such as when the appellate court decides a dispositive issue which does not turn on facts which might change on retrial, id., at 519 ; 74 Cal.Rptr., at 160 , the Court of Appeal clearly contemplated a possible retrial here.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “In this case our analysis of the question whether the federal constitutional issues may be affected by additional proceedings in the state courts . . . is . . . affected by ambiguities in the record”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “policy of strict necessity in disposing of constitutional issues”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.