2 Cal. 5th 885 - People v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
19 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1229B (§ 240a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Padilla v. Kentucky · Deboris Calcano-Martinezs v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · 23 Cal. 4th 183 - People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“conviction for the offense charged will have the consequence of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“One of the purposes of the section 1016.5 advisement is to enable the defendant to seek advice from counsel about the actual risk of adverse immigration consequences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Tapia“[t]he generic advisement under [Penal Code] section 1016.5 is not designed, nor does it operate, as a substitute for such advice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.