24 Cal. 3d 133 - People v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “None of these cases remotely resemble the case at bar. The imposter cases do, however, point up the importance of state standards fashioned to ensure that persons appointed to represent defendants are competent to do so. But we perceive no constitutional requirement that prevents a state from recognizing degrees of competence. The State Bar Rules here rest on the premise that although only a member of the bar is competent to undertake to represent a defendant without supervision, an advanced law student is competent to do so if he receives immediate supervision from experienced counsel. If such Rules in fact serve to provide defendants with competent defense, we find no abridgment of constitutional protections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 100 Wash. 2d 212 - City of Seattle v. Ratliff

2. ““[t]he defendant *** is not merely represented by a student who has not been admitted to the bar; he is represented by an experienced member of the bar who serves as counsel of record, undertakes personal and immediate supervision of the student’s performance, and assumes responsibility for the conduct of the defense.” People v. Perez, 24 Cal. 3d at 138 , 594 P.2d at 4 , 155 Cal. Rptr. at 179 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 237 Ill. 2d 285 - People v. Denzel W.