People v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ultimately, the rule against surplusage 'is not absolute' and 'will be applied only if it results in a reasonable reading of the legislation.' [Citation.] Giving the second paragraph's words their ordinary meaning, we conclude that Watts's offense, like all the others presently covered by section 11372.5, is not one 'for which a fine is not authorized by other provisions of law.' As a result, the first paragraph's characterization of the crime-lab fee as a fee is controlling, and penalty assessments should not have been imposed on it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417 - People v. Martinez

2. “[That opinion] held that the court security fee ( [Pen. Code,] § 1465.8 ) is not punitive, in part because it had a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose and because the amount of the fee is not dependent on the seriousness of the criminal offense. The court reasoned that the purpose of the fee 'was not to punish but to ensure adequate funding for court security.' [Citation.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417 - People v. Martinez

3. “Importantly, unlike penalty assessments which also generate funds for court services, the court security fee is a relatively small flat fee and not a percentage of the total fine imposed on a defendant. [Citation.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417 - People v. Martinez