Peloza v. Freas’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018
10 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 Hicklin v. Orbeck · 4 Cal. 3d 716 - Zeilenga v. Nelson · 9 Cal. 3d 96 - Thompson v. Mellon · Alaska Pacific Assurance Co. v. Brown · State v. Ostrosky
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues and, (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“inclined to consider problematic any period longer than one year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.