71 Cal. 2d 184 - In Re Dapper’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 37 Cal. 4th 685 - Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005), 16 Cal. App. 4th 383 - Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage (1993)
57 state decisions
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 Steamship Company v. Joliffe · 256 Cal. App. 2d 623 - People v. Dominguez · Hamasaki v. Flotho · 26 Cal. 2d 297 - Sekt v. Justice's Court · In Re Hawley
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.
“affect the continuous operation of the [prior] law,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Domingues · State v. Young“Neither the adoption of this Code nor the repeal hereby of any Ordinance of this City shall in any manner effect [ sic ] the prosecution for violation of Ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof. " ( Ibid., original italics.) Dapper pointed out that, as indicated by the highlighted portions of the provision, the clause referred only to ordinances "repealed by the code [at the time the code was adopted], and not to ordinances comprising the code which are subsequently repealed. It is equally clear that the 'violations' referred to, prosecution for which is preserved, are violations occurring before the adoption of the code and not violations like those involved here which occurred after adoption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to dump or throw rubbish of any kind upon any lot or tract of land... except by the written permission of the City Council; and it shall be unlawful ... to place or allow to be placed, or allow to remain on any premises ... such rubbish without the written permission of the City Council.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Domingues
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.