People v. Strub’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. “It should also be noted that Penal Code section 1378 provides, in part, that a compromise may be permitted in a proper case `if the person injured appears before the court in which the action is pending ... and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury....' Although no cases definitively construe that portion of Penal Code section 1378, there is a tenable argument that the appearance and acknowledgment of satisfaction required by section 1378 constitutes a necessary condition precedent to the court's compromise of a misdemeanor charge. While People v. O'Rear (1963) 220 Cal. App.2d Supp. 927 [ 34 Cal. Rptr. 61 ], may indicate that the injured party need not actually appear before the court, the use of the term `satisfaction' would seem to require at least acquiescence to the restitution proffered by defendant. " ( Id., at Supp. p. 4; italics added.) In Moulton, supra, we announced that "[b]y requiring personal presence of the victim or in lieu thereof other trustworthy evidence, [section 1378] affords the court the opportunity to assure itself that satisfaction is complete or a settlement voluntary. Instances where the victim has been subject to coercion to dismiss charges are not without precedent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Cal. App. 3d 1230 - People v. Stephen

2. “acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Cal. App. 3d 1230 - People v. Stephen