Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 CALAPP4TH 1052 - People v. Matthews

People v. Matthews’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 9 Cal. 4th 493 - People v. Simon (1995), 34 Cal. 4th 254 - In Re Jennings (2004)

42 state decisions

320199220002010decided

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 Morissette v. United States · United States v. Dotterweich · United States v. Park · 42 Cal. 3d 891 - People v. Overstreet · 13 Cal. 3d 149 - Morse v. Municipal 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the court finds the arrestee to be factually innocent of the charges for which the arrest was made, then the court shall order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense, the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency which arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the petitioner ... to seal their records of the arrest ... and thereafter to destroy their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy those records. The court shall also order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense and the Department of Justice to request the destruction of any records of the arrest which they have given to any local, state, or federal agency, person or entity. Each state or local agency ... shall destroy its records of the arrest and the request to destroy the records, unless otherwise provided in this section .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[ Penal Code ] section 851.8 is for the benefit of those defendants who have not committed a crime. It permits those petitioners who can show that the state should never have subjected them to the compulsion of the criminal law-because no objective factors justified official action-to purge the official records of any reference to such action. `The Legislature thus recognized that the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt often results that defendants, who are not factually innocent, are acquitted.' [Citations.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Establishing factual innocence, within the meaning of Penal Code section 851.8, entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the arrestee had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.”
    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.