Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 641 P2D 935 - People v. Thorpe

People v. Thorpe’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
7
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 27 Cal. 4th 537 - Manduley v. Superior Court (2002), State v. Angel C. (1998)

52 state decisions

2501982199020002010decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Neil v. Biggers · Jackson v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite

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

  1. “[i]t is well settled that a prosecutor has constitutional power to exercise his discretion in deciding which of several possible charges to press in a prosecution”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`to make any disposition of the case that any juvenile court would have'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion. Within the limits set by the legislature’s constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, ‘the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation’ so long as ‘the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’”
    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.