People v. Olvera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “that a finding based on prejudicial error may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the only finding that the court is required to make ... is whether the conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party's ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Mejia · 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 398 - People v. Camacho

2. “[w]e defer to the trial court's factual determinations if supported by substantial evidence, but exercise our independent judgment to decide whether the facts demonstrate [prejudicial error].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Chen · 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39 - People v. Fryhaat

3. “note[d] that the California Supreme Court disavowed the collateral-direct consequences distinction in 2001 (nine years before Padilla ), and expressly reserved the question whether there was at that time an affirmative duty to advise ( In re Resendiz [ (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230 ] at pp. 240, 248, 250 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 19 P.3d 1171 ] ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 398 - People v. Camacho