50 Cal. 2d 245 - People v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
1 district · 396 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 399 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 58 Cal. 2d 748 - People v. McFarland (1962), 27 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Green (1980)
1 district · 396 state decisions — followed in 11 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · People v. Newland · 40 Cal. 2d 876 - People v. Daugherty · People v. Winston · People v. Gallardo
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 399 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof ...””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““In a situation ¡such as this, if any substantial objective of justice would be served thereby, this court could reverse [both judgments], order such counts consolidated, and remand the cause for rearraignment of the defendant for .sentence and for sentence on the consolidated count. Inasmuch, however, as it does not appear that here either the state or the defendant will be prejudiced by a ¡simple reversal as to one count and affirmance as to the other, and as finality of adjudication will thereby be expedited, we conclude that the latter procedure is the more desirable.” Id. at 275-76 , 324 P.2d at 573 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Boudreau · State v. Mills“[E]vidence ... shows that [the] defendants] originally received the [stolen items] on a single occasion. Therefore, but one offense of receiving stolen property is shown, although the goods were stolen from different sources, and the duality of the sentences, even though they are ordered to run concurrently, cannot be permitted to stand.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.