Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 925 P2D 274 - People v. Ebbert

People v. Ebbert’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2016

9 state decisions

50199620002010decided

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 People v. Varallo · People v. Murray · People v. Ross · People v. Ebbert · People v. McDonnell

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

  1. “warranting a lawyer's disbarment). The cireumstances of this particular offense, however, coupled with defendant's criminal background, were aggravated. Defendant, a previously convicted sex offender, had recent convictions for attempted sexual assault on a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was on parole for less than a month when he committed the instant offenses. Those prior convictions, moreover, involved conduct similar to that underlying this case. © Defendant tries to minimize his current offense as simply”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Iplossession of cocaine, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, both felonies, are serious crimes”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “because he did not provide either the legal services agreed to or refund the unused part”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.