In Re Dennis’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably 61 Cal. 2d 795 - People v. Wolff (1964), 39 Cal. 4th 826 - People v. Rogers (2006)
59 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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · 40 Cal. 2d 876 - People v. Daugherty · Dowdell v. United States
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to the due process contention, the United States Supreme Court in Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107 [ 78 L.Ed. 674, 679 , 54 S.Ct. 330 , 90 A.L.R. 575 ], has stated: ‘So far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence and to that extent only.’ (Italics added.) The rule has been expressed in In re Dennis, 51 Cal.2d 666, 672-673 [ 335 P.2d 657 ], as follows: ‘In other words, it appears that when the presence of the defendant will be useful, or of benefit to him and his counsel, the lack of his presence becomes a denial of due process of law.’ (Italics added.) In Dennis (p. 672) the court quoted with approval from Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, the following: ‘Nowhere in the decisions of this court is there a dictum, and still less a ruling, that the Fourteenth Amendment assures the privilege of presence when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.’ ” 270 Cal.App.2d at 19 , 75 Cal. Rptr. at 594 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State“[pjroof that defendant was afflicted with a permanent insanity, as distinguished from a temporary or transient insanity, prior to the commission of the crime charged will, however, dispel the presumption of sanity and raise a presumption that his insanity continued to exist until the time of the commission of the crime. Id. at 661 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark v. State“Where ... the evidence is uncontradicted and entirely to the effect that the accused is insane, the presumption of sanity may not be permitted to prevail.”
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.