People v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 1988 · most notably 35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles (1950), 59 Cal. 2d 503 - People v. Ketchel (1963)
3 federal appellate · 28 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 21 Cal. 2d 71 - People v. Duane · 66 Cal. App. 2d 319 - People v. Simpson · 26 Cal. App. 2d 513 - People v. Rose
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The next point urged by the appellant is that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting Painter to testify in rebuttal although he remained in the courtroom in contravention of the order of the court excluding ‘the other witnesses’ made while Painter, as the first witness, was on the stand. The violation of an exclusion order does not render the witness incompetent to testify, nor does it furnish grounds to refuse permission to testify. In fact, to refuse to permit such a witness to testify would be error. The witness who violates the order of exclusion may be guilty of reprehensible conduct, and such witness may be punishable by contempt, and such conduct may affect the witness’ credibility, but it does not affect the admissibility of the evidence. [Citation.] While the Duane case involved a witness for the defense it is obvious that the-rule must apply to either a prosecution or defense witness. ’ ’”
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.