5 Cal. 3d 171 - In Re Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 17 Cal. 3d 908 - Payne v. Superior Court (1976)
15 federal appellate · 70 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mempa v. Rhay · Hannah v. Larche · Henry v. Mississippi · 1 Cal. 3d 524 - People v. St. Martin
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Therefore, notwithstanding the Adult Authority’s internal characterization of parole revocation proceedings as involving an ‘adjudication’ process, revocation of parole cannot be considered a judicial act. This fact seemingly would distinguish these proceedings from the deferred sentencing procedures involved in Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 336 , 88 S.Ct. 254 ], relied upon by petitioner. In Mempa , defendant was brought before the trial court for a hearing on the revocation of his probation and the imposition of his sentence, which had been deferred during the probationary period. As these proceedings constituted merely a continuation of the original judicial proceedings instituted against defendant, the United States Supreme Court held that defendant had a right to be represented in court by counsel, stating that right to counsel extends to ‘every stage of a criminal proceeding where substantial rights of a criminal accused may be affected.’ ( 389 U.S. at p. 134 [ 19 L.Ed.2d at p. 340 ].) The court stressed that counsel’s assistance would be required to influence ‘judicial discretion’ (the trial court was authorized to make recommendations to the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles regarding defendant’s actual prison term) and to protect defendant’s ‘legal rights’ (such as right to appeal). ( 389 U.S. at p. 135 [19 L.Ed.2d at pp. 340-341].) However, it is significant that the court did not suggest that counsel would be required during the subsequent administrativ”
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.