Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 CAL2D 757 - In Re Griffin

In Re Griffin’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
8
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably 65 Cal. 2d 349 - Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1966), 39 Cal. 3d 464 - In Re Jackson (1985)

4 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

2701965197019801990200020102020decided

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 63 Cal. 2d 740 - In Re Estrada · People v. Griffin

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

  1. ““Does such a statute increase or decrease the punishment? Does it mitigate the rigors of the old law? Whatever the technical nature of a parole may be, from a realistic point of view it is our opinion that such a statute increases the punishment rather than decreases it. It follows, that to apply it to petitioner, would be unconstitutional. It is elementary, of course, that a statute amended after an act is committed so as to increase the punishment cannot be made applicable to an accused, because to do so would run afoul of the prohibition against ex post facto laws.... [¶] ... [W]hile accepting the benefits of the old law by accepting parole under it, petitioner also insists he is entitled to the benefits of the amendatory act without its detriments. This cannot be. This court must determine whether the amendatory statute increased or decreased the penalty. As applied to petitioner, we hold that when considered realistically and as a whole, the amendatory statute increased the punishment, and so cannot be made applicable to petitioner.””
    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.