12 Cal. App. 3d 720 - People v. Rhoades’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. ““As we view it, it would not be a burden upon Rhoades’ land ‘depreciative of its value’ to require that it be so maintained as not to be a hazard to forest lands in general and to Rhoades’ lands in particular. We prefer the more common sense approach of dissenting judge Hale and the other dissenting judges in Snohomish. The dissenting opinion says (on pp. 27-28): ‘The broad general meaning employed by the majority ... is not called for by the statute. The term “encumbrance” should be given its more . . . precise meaning— one denoting a burden on the land and affecting the title thereto or one impairing the power of alienation such as a mortgage, lien, easement, lease, or other disability to fee ownership.’ In short, this court takes the position that by ‘encumbrance’ Congress intended to protect the Indian against his own profligacy — against those who throughout history have exploited the Indian. And we direct attention to the fact that in Public Law 280 the word ‘encumbrance’ (in the restrictive sentence referred to above) is used in the same series as the word ‘alienation.’ ” 12 Cal.App.3d at 724 , 90 Cal.Rptr. at 797 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians' Tribal Council v. City of Palm Springs