People v. Shorts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

255 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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... in People v. Shorts, supra, 32 Cal.2d 502, 513 [ 197 P.2d 330 ], the court said that an applicant for a writ '... must show that the facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by him at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ; otherwise he has stated no ground for relief.'”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Tannehill · 222 Cal. App. 2d 801 - People v. Blevins

2. ““We are of the view that where a defendant seeks to vacate a solemn judgment of conviction, particularly where such judgment has been affirmed on appeal, the showing of diligence essential to the granting of relief by way of coram nobis should he no less than the similar showing required in-civil cases where relief is sought against lately discovered fraud. In such eases it is necessary to aver not only the probative facts upon which the basic claim rests, but also the time and circumstances under which the facts were discovered, in order that the court can determine as a matter of law whether the litigant proceeded with due diligence; a mere allegation of the ultimate facts, or of the legal conclusion of diligence, is insufficient.” (Citing cases.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Cal. App. 2d 476 - People v. James · 222 Cal. App. 2d 694 - People v. Quigley

3. ““Did the Superior Court op the State op California Violate the Constitutional Rights op Dependant by Denying Dependant’s Petition por Error Coram Nobis Without a Proper Hearing ? “Your appellant, Santiago Tarín, being confined in a State Prison located at Represa, California was informed on or about the 1st day of October, 1955, while studying law in the Law Library of said Prison, that he was given a fraudulent and void trial on the 11th day of September, 1952 in that while being represented by counsel, he was forced to enter a Plea of Guilty to charges contained in the information filed against him on the 3rd day of September, 1952. “Your appellant contends that his constitutional rights to a fair trial were denied him by the method used by the Court Officers in that he was subject to coercion which resulted in the overreaching of his free will and clear judgment in making the Plea of Guilty. e c “Appellant contends that had he been informed of the true meaning of the law of the State of California prior to the 1st of October, 1955, he would have then filed his petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis at the very earliest possible moment, however, due to the fact that he was not aware of his trial being fraudulent until October of 1955, he is entitled to be heard by way of Error Coram Nobis even though a period of three years has passed since the entering of the plea of guilty. “Appellant concedes that the writ of Error Coram Nobis is one of narrow scope and its purpose ver”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Tarin