People v. Winston’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 400 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 410 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 42 Cal. 3d 730 - People v. Rodriguez (1986), 16 Cal. 3d 282 - People v. Duran (1976)
6 federal appellate · 400 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 United States v. Rabinowitz · Agnello v. United States · Harris v. United States · Trupiano v. United States · 44 Cal. 2d 434 - People v. Cahan
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 410 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'act . . . within the provisions of [the] code,'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘It is well settled that a search without a warrant is valid where it is incident to a lawful arrest, if it is reasonable and made in good faith; and that a seizure, during such a search, of evidence related to the crime is permissible . . .’ ” (Citations.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant first contends that the corpus delicti was not proved for the first three counts, in that there was no proof that the substance smoked was marijuana. While conceding that the prosecution need not physically produce the narcotic, he insists that to prove a substance is a narcotic, there must be not only the testimony of the user but also that of a medical doctor or expert. ( People v. Candalaria, 121 Cal. App.2d 686 [ 264 P.2d 71 ]; People v. Tipton, 124 Cal. App.2d 213 [ 268 P.2d 196 ].) Although in the cited cases, in addition to the testimony of the users, experts testified that in their opinion, from the description given by the users and their reactions from its use, the substance was a narcotic, neither case holds that such expert evidence is required for a conviction if the users demonstrate a knowledge of the narcotic as such.... The competency of the girls to testify that the cigarettes were marijuana was shown by their knowledge of it from previous use. In view of such experience, the trial court permitted the girls to identify the substance furnished them by defendant as marijuana. `The weight, of course, to be given this testimony was for the jury.' ( People v. Candalaria, supra, 121 Cal. App.2d 686, 690 .)”
1 later decision 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.