People v. Brophy’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably 51 Cal. 3d 395 - People v. Hedgecock (1990), Pitts v. County of Kern (1998)
9 federal appellate · 77 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Coulter v. Pool · People v. Lim · People v. Curtis · Wright v. Jordan · 32 Cal. App. 2d 31 - People v. MacKen
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * the so-called affirmative defense was invalid and therefore raised no issues. In both substance and effect it amounted to no more than a recital of certain information that respondent telephone company had received, and the source thereof added nothing to its value as a defense." [Emphasis supplied.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“contemplate absolute control and direction of such officials.... Especially is this true as to sheriffs and district attorneys....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““If the powers of the Attorney General are thus limited in the most direct performance of the duties of that offce, by what authority may that official invade the affairs of other governmental agencies in general and public utility companies in particular ? If there is any such authority at all, it must be by virtue of the first sentence of section 21, which as above noted reads as follows: ‘The Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the state and it shall be his duty to see that the laws of the State of California are uniformly and adequately enforced in every county of the state. ’ Manifestly, enforcement of the laws contemplates enforcement according to law, the procedure for which is definitely established. There is nothing in section 21 of article Y which authorizes the Attorney General to depart from that procedure; and in that connection, no provision has been called to our attention, nor have we been able to find any, which directly or indirectly empowers the Attorney General to issue any orders in the nature of those contained in the letter to the telephone company. The expression, ‘the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer,’ as provided in section 21 of article Y, obviously confers no such authority, for at most such an expression, interpreted in the light of the limitations that follow, can be no more than descriptive, and vests no more authority in the Attorney General than the expression in section 1 of article V, viz., 1 The supreme executi”
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.