Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 CALAPP3D 302 - People v. Perez

People v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Porter (2011), Bland v. Fessler (1996)

4 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

140199120002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · 40 Cal. 3d 239 - Serna v. Superior Court · United States v. DeClue · United States v. Blanco · Rayborn v. Scully

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

  1. ““The Sixth Amendment rights of the accused cannot be summarily dismissed or deemed waived based solely on the fact that he has fled the jurisdiction. Even when the defendant has made a concerted effort to avoid prosecution, a court must give effect to the holding of Barker v. Wingo by weighing the conduct of both sides. “Where the only circumstance which has caused the delay is the defendant’s flight,... the claim of denial of the right to speedy trial carries almost no weight. To say, however, as the majority does, that no other factor need be considered in such cases is to set a dangerous precedent. It requires no great imagination to envision the misuse to which this ruling may be put.” (People v. Perez, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at pp. 319-320, fn. omitted (dis. opn. of Woods (A. M.), P. J.).)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “We regard none of the four factors ... as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. In sum, these factors have no talismanic qualities; courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.