6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 49 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Rivera.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Rivera Anchor | green | “when legislation has been judicially construed and a subsequent statute on a similar subject uses identical or substantially similar language, the usual presumption is that the legislature or the voters intended the same construction, unless a contrary intent clearly appears.” | 13 |
| 2 | T.W. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County | green | “entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars (950).” | 11 |
| 3 | People v. Rivera | green | “wherever any law or statute of this state refers to or mentions larceny, embezzlement, or stealing, said law or statute shall hereafter be read and interpreted as if the word 'theft' were substituted therefor.” | 9 |
| 4 | The People v. Williams | green | “the legislature has indicated a clear intent that the term 'larceny' as used in the burglary statute should be read to include all thefts, including 'petit' theft by false pretenses.” | 7 |
| 5 | People v. Hung Hao Nguyen | green | “the legislature has indicated a clear intent that the term 'larceny' as used in the burglary statute should be read to include all thefts, including 'petit' theft by false pretenses.” | 5 |
| 6 | The People v. Williams | green | “requirement of robbery. ( williams, supra, 57 cal.4th at pp. 779-780.) one element of robbery, which is not present in any other type of theft, is the” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.