California Supreme Court· 7/15/1968
People v. Baker
Citations
- 442 P.2d 675
- 69 Cal. 2d 44
- 69 Cal. Rptr. 595
- 1968 Cal. LEXIS 226
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that “the Legislature by expressly including relationships between brothers and sisters of the half blood and not so specifying as to more distant relatives has evinced the intention to exclude such persons from the prohibitions of the statute”
- statute forbad marriage between “parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Peters
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1970-06-12· cited 360×
- People v. CaudilloCalifornia Supreme Court· 1978-06-23· cited 240×
- Nino v. Gladys R.California Supreme Court· 1970-01-30· cited 225×
- Walker v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1988-11-10· cited 188×
- People v. Jerry R.California Court of Appeal· 1994-11-01· cited 114×
- Morse v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1974-12-17· cited 106×
- People v. TobiasCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-04-26· cited 86×
- Warden v. KahnCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1979-12-14· cited 58×
- Tapscott v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1995-08-31· cited 36×
- In Re Marriage of CarterCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1971-08-23· cited 35×
- Reyes v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1977-11-18· cited 33×
- Tapscott v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1996-11-04· cited 33×
- Texas Commerce Bank v. GaramendiCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1992-11-30· cited 32×
- Singh v. SinghSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-02-06· cited 32×
- People v. GopalCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1985-08-23· cited 29×
- Absher v. AutoZone, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2008-06-26· cited 26×
- People v. ManchaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1974-06-05· cited 24×
- People v. MorelandCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1978-05-17· cited 22×
- People v. StepneyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1981-06-26· cited 20×
- Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 1999-03-25· cited 19×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court· 1964-11-30· cited 141×
- People v. HallnerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1954-12-10· cited 116×
- In re ZerbeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1964-01-14· cited 89×
- Shelly v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1895-06-13· cited 26×
- Moore v. Purse Seine NetCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-10-20· cited 24×
- State v. WymanSupreme Court of Vermont· 1887-02-15· cited 21×
- State v. JarvisOregon Supreme Court· 1891-04-06· cited 18×
- City of Santa Barbara v. MaherCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1938-03-14· cited 16×
- Grant v. HipsherCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1967-12-22· cited 14×
- State v. GuitonSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1898-12-19· cited 13×
- Commonwealth v. AsheyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1924-02-29· cited 10×
- People v. WomackCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1959-01-14· cited 9×
- Cecil v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1910-11-22· cited 9×
- People v. BingerIllinois Supreme Court· 1919-10-27· cited 8×
- People v. OrtizCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1948-06-17· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.