Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 CALAPP3D 52 - People v. Melissakis

People v. Melissakis’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2016

22 state decisions

8019761980199020002010decided

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 66 Cal. 2d 508 - People v. Pennington · People v. Beivelman · 67 Cal. 2d 272 - People v. Laudermilk · 71 Cal. 2d 153 - People v. Coogler · 15 Cal. 3d 221 - Hale v. Superior Court

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

  1. “A defendant who, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, is 'unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner,' is incompetent to stand trial. [Citation.] When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is 'substantial' if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial. [Citation.] The court's duty to conduct a competency hearing arises when such evidence is presented at any time 'prior to judgment.' [Citations.] 231 "When a competency hearing has already been held and the defendant has been found competent to stand trial, however, a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it 'is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence' casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding. [Citations.]”
    2 later decisions 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.