People v. Stanley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• defendant not allowed to have telephone in his home after having been convicted of conspiring to commit bookmaking

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hoffa v. Saxbe
  District of Columbia· 1974-07-19· cited 26×
• People v. Garcia
  California Court of Appeal· 1960-12-05· cited 18×
• People v. King
  California Court of Appeal· 1968-12-03· cited 15×
• People v. Buckman
  California Court of Appeal· 1960-11-02· cited 13×
• People v. Augusto
  California Court of Appeal· 1961-06-21· cited 7×
• People v. Smith
  California Court of Appeal· 1960-09-14· cited 6×
• People v. Danielson
  California Court of Appeal· 1962-05-11· cited 6×
• Evans v. Unruh
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1961-03-01· cited 4×
• People v. Gautt
  California Court of Appeal· 1961-03-21· cited 3×
• People v. Servillo
  California Court of Appeal· 1962-08-30· cited 1×
• People v. Jackson
  California Court of Appeal· 1962-12-05
• People v. Neely
  California Court of Appeal· 1960-07-29

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Osslo
  California Supreme Court· 1958-03-26· cited 126×
• People v. Benenato
  California Court of Appeal· 1946-12-19· cited 67×
• People v. Sica
  California Court of Appeal· 1952-08-07· cited 53×
• People v. Blankenship
  California Court of Appeal· 1936-09-29· cited 35×
• People v. Frank
  California Court of Appeal· 1949-11-22· cited 29×
• People v. Brownstein
  California Court of Appeal· 1952-03-24· cited 9×
• People v. Farrell
  California Court of Appeal· 1951-10-23· cited 6×