46 Cal. 3d 585 - People v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
246 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 255 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 13 Cal. 4th 497 - People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996), 9 Cal. 4th 331 - People v. Scott (1994)
246 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 63 Cal. 2d 740 - In Re Estrada · 43 Cal. 3d 1104 - People v. Anderson · Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization · 53 Cal. 2d 370 - People v. Banks · 18 Cal. 3d 479 - Bowland v. Municipal Court
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 255 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`is inapplicable unless two reasonable interpretations of the same provision stand in relative equipoise, i.e., ... resolution of the statute's ambiguities in a convincing manner is impracticable.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[When] language which is reasonably susceptible of two constructions is used in a penal law ordinarily that construction which is more favorable to the offender will be adopted. [¶] The defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In lieu of the term provided in Section 1170.1, a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of ... subdivision (2) or (3) of Section 261 [rape], ... Section 289 [genital penetration by a foreign object], or of committing sodomy or oral copulation in violation of Section 286 or 288a by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person whether or not the crimes were committed during a single transaction.”
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.