26 Cal. 3d 334 - People v. Chavez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 206 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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “California decisions have long recognized that `[s]tate courts in interpreting provisions of the state Constitution are not necessarily concluded by an interpretation placed on similar provisions in the federal Constitution.' [Citations.] This conclusion, of course, simply reflects one of the principal tenets of our federal system of government: just as the United States Supreme Court bears the ultimate judicial responsibility for determining matters of federal law, this court bears the ultimate judicial responsibility for resolving questions of state law, including the proper interpretation of provisions of the state Constitution. [Citation.] (10) (See fn. 6.) In fulfilling this difficult and grave responsibility, we cannot properly relegate our task to the judicial guardians of the federal Constitution, but instead must recognize our personal obligation to exercise independent legal judgment in ascertaining the meaning and application of state constitutional provisions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sirilan v. Castro · 37 Cal. 3d 136 - People v. Ramos

2. “... we don't do that, Mr. Chavez. We appoint our own counsel at the Superior Court level. " ( Id. at p. 341, original italics.) Finding an abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court held that the superior court had "improperly adhered to a fixed policy of appointing its `own' counsel in every case. The exercise of the court's discretion in the appointment of counsel should not have been restricted by an inflexible rule, but rather should have rested upon consideration of the particular facts and interests involved in the case before it. By refusing to give defendant Chavez an opportunity to explain why he preferred that his former counsel represent him at trial, the court effectively foreclosed consideration of any arguments which defendant may have marshalled in support of continuing Attorney Ingber's appointment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 Cal. App. 4th 320 - Williams v. Superior Court

3. “"Although one passage in Drumgo intimated in dictum that an abuse of discretion in the appointment of counsel could never be established `when the court appoints competent counsel who is uncommitted to any position or interest which would conflict with providing an effective defense' (fn. omitted) ( 8 Cal.3d at p. 935 , 106 Cal. Rptr. at p. 634 , 506 P.2d at p. 1010 ), we subsequently reconsidered that language in Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 797 , 140 Cal. Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 and explained that in this context, as in other contexts, the boundaries of `judicial discretion' cannot be embraced by an `absolute rule' but must be judged by the circumstances of the particular case." 161 Cal. Rptr. at 768-69 , 605 P.2d at 407-08 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McCabe