Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 CALAPP3D 113 - People v. Culton

People v. Culton’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2013

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

12019791980199020002010decided

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 2 Cal. 3d 118 - People v. Marsden · 21 Cal. 3d 562 - People v. Caudillo · 17 Cal. 3d 330 - In Re Culbreth · People v. Lewis · 41 Cal. App. 3d 62 - People v. Munoz

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

  1. ““The judgment pronounced on the first verdict was preliminary in nature, and was subject to modification. When all counts had been disposed of, in order for the court, to pronounce a judgment which avoided double punishment, the court did appropriately stay the assault count to meet the requirements of section 654. In accepting the verdict on the assault count and then impanelling a new jury to try the two counts on which there had been jury disagreement, the court proceeded in compliance with the applicable statute (see Pen. Code, § 1160).” ( 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 117 .)”
    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.