46 Cal. App. 764 - People v. Bickerstaff’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2007
20 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 Commonwealth v. Holstine · 36 Cal. App. 292 - People v. Pera · People v. Bemmerly · People v. Paulsell · 25 Cal. App. 60 - People v. Strickler
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Repetitions of this character are not necessary and should be avoided as far as possible.... The trial judge should take care to give to the jury, once in clear language, every principle of law applicable to the particular case. When he has done this, he is not required to repeat any of them, ... Such continual repetition tends to give undue emphasis to the particular point to which they may relate and operates to confuse the jury in their consideration of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Trial judges, should adhere to the well-established precedents in framing or approving instructions on the subject of reasonable doubt, and should avoid any attempt to frame new definitions of the term.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Weston
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.