Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope

23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

1,359
cited by 1,359 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 1,289 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,359 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Strickland v. Washington (1984), 26 Cal. 3d 557 - People v. Johnson (1980)

42 federal appellate · 1,289 state decisions — followed in 14 states

7860197919801990200020102020decided

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 Anders v. California · Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Chambers v. Maroney

Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · 33 Cal. 3d 572 - People v. Fosselman · 43 Cal. 3d 171 - People v. Ledesma · Chapman v. State of California · 25 Cal. 3d 142 - People v. Frierson

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 1,359 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]ppellant must show that trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates. In addition, appellant must establish that counsel's acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Otherwise, the appellate courts would become engaged in the perilous process of second-guessing. (Citation omitted) Reversals would be ordered unnecessarily in cases where there were, in fact, good reasons for the aspect of counsel’s representation under attack. Indeed, such reasons might lead a new defense counsel on retrial to do exactly what the original counsel did, making manifest the waste of judicial resources caused by reversal on an incomplete record.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “counsel's omissions resulted from an informed tactical choice within the range of reasonable competence, the conviction must be affirmed”
    3 later decisions 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.