268 Cal. App. 2d 813 - Mitchell v. Orr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . The Director bases this argument on the contention that by revoking a driver’s license it is not imposing a penal sanction but is deciding upon driving competence. This contention is answered in People v. Coffey, 67 Cal.2d 204 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 430 P.2d 15 ], relating to the use of priors for impeachment purposes, where the court held that a constitutionally invalid conviction could not be used for any purpose leading to a conviction, or severity of sanction. The court said at pages 214-215: ‘. . .to the extent that statutory machinery relating to penal status or severity of sanction is activated by the presence of prior convictions, it is imperative that the constitutional basis of such convictions be examined if challenged by proper allegations. [ Citations. ] The fact that a prior conviction was sustained in another jurisdiction does not preclude such examination. ‘ ‘ To the extent that any State makes its penal sanctions depend in part on the fact of prior convictions elsewhere, necessarily it must assume the burden of meeting attacks on the constitutionality of such prior convictions.” (United States v. Jackson (2d Cir. 1957) 250 F.2d 349, 355 ; see In re Woods, supra, 64 Cal.2d 3, 5 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 689 , 409 P.2d 913 ]).’ ‘‘While the suspension or revocation by the Motor Vehicle Department of a license may not ordinarily be considered penal and its purpose is to make the streets and highways safe by protecting the public from incompetent drivers or their lack o”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Cal. 3d 335 - Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles · 272 Cal. App. 2d 820 - De La Vigne v. Department of Motor Vehicles

2. ““The Director concedes that if a prior conviction is to be used for the purpose of suspending a driver’s license, the prior cannot be an invalid one. The Director also does not dispute the right of the municipal court to make a determination as to the validity of the prior but contends that the Motor Vehicle Department may also make its own determination. The Director argues that the proceedings before the Department of Motor Vehicles are separate and distinct from those before the municipal court and that the Department is not bound by the court determination of the validity of a prior conviction. The Director relies primarily upon Cook v. Bright, 208 Cal.App.2d 98 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 116 ], wherein the court held that the Department of Motor Vehicles was free to make its own determination as to whether or not a defendant did have a prior conviction and was not bound by the fact that the court did not make a determination or give consideration to an alleged prior conviction. There was no question that the defendant in Cook, supra, had a prior conviction. The court merely held that the failure of the municipal court to suspend the driving license did not prevent the Motor Vehicle Department from doing so, in the presence of the record of the prior conviction, the validity of which had not been questioned. “Although section 13352 of the Vehicle Code requires suspension of the driver’s license on the first offense, section 13210, as well as section 13352, gives the court the discret”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 272 Cal. App. 2d 820 - De La Vigne v. Department of Motor Vehicles