Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 CALAPP2D 72 - People v. Kerns

People v. Kerns’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
August 1997
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 1997

3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

601935194019501960197019801990decided

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 119 Cal. App. 82 - People v. Beesly · People v. Markham · 75 Cal. App. 365 - People v. Anderson · People v. Squires · 59 Cal. App. 381 - People v. Lips

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

  1. ““ . . . In the instant case, it is not necessary that there be an understanding, in the sense of an agreement, with the person unlawfully approached, but merely an understanding on the part of the bribe seeker himself that his official action shall be influenced. We are satisfied that the language of the information, the relevant parts of which we set forth above, is a sufficient allegation in this regard. People v. Beesly, 119 Cal. App. 82 , 6 P.2d 114, 970 ; People v. McGee, 107 Cal.App. 56 , 290 P. 61 ; People v. Seeley, 137 Cal. 13 , 69 P. 693 .””
    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.