People v. Wallach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 state decisions

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

1. “The only way in which a sentence can be legally suspended is by proceeding under the provisions of the probation law (People v. Mendosa, 178 Cal. 509 [ 173 P. 998 ]; Ex parte Slattery, 163 Cal. 176 [ 124 P. 856 ]; In re Clark, 70 Cal.App. 643 [ 234 P. 109 ]; In re Cohen, 198 Cal. 221 [ 244 P. 359 ]; People v. Harvey, 137 Cal.App. 22 [29 PaCal.2d 787], and the municipal court had implied power (since then expressly conferred by section 1203a of the Penal Code) to effect a suspension of the sentence by following, but only by following, the form and method prescribed in section 1203 of the Penal Code. While the order of the municipal court judge as it appeared on the docket is somewhat inartificial, no formal order was required for the granting of probation. (People v. Sapienzo, 60 Cal.App. 626 [ 213 P. 274 ]; In re Herron, 217 Cal. 400 [19 PaCal.2d 4].) In the Herron case the trial court, after imposing a sentence of 30 days following the defendant's conviction of petty theft, made the mere order, 'Sentence suspended', and it was held that this was an order placing the defendant on probation for a term equal in length to the maximum period of imprisonment provided as the penalty for that offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 Cal. App. 2d 848 - In Re Goetz

2. ““The fact that the defendant spent the first 30 days of her-probationary period in the county jail does not amount to> her having served a term of imprisonment in a penal institution.. That period of detention was imposed not as a sentence but as.; a condition of probation, and the granting of probation suspended the execution of the 90-day sentence previously imposed!. It cannot be said that the 30 days spent by defendant' in the- county jail was served under the sentence, where that sentence had been suspended by the probation order.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Woodbury v. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District of Montana

3. ““ * * * the order placing a defendant on probation, even though it include as a condition a period of detention in the county jail, is not a judgment and sentence. People v. Roberts, 136 Cal.App. 709, 713 [ 29 P.2d 432 ]. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Bougie