Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 642 P2D 39 - People v. Stevens

People v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
13
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2014

19 state decisions — followed in 13 states

801981199020002010decided

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 Hughley v. People · People v. DISTRICT COURT, IN & FOR SECOND JUD. DIST. · People v. Palumbo · People v. Shinkle · People v. Moore

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

  1. “A defendant should not be forced to attempt to prove that there was actual indiscretion or impropriety. Evidence of such conduct, being under the control of the prosecution, would be well-nigh impossible for a defendant to bring forth. [Emphasis in original.]”
    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.