33 Cal. 2d 534 - In Re Horowitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 81 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This is an appeal by defendant from an order denying his petition for a writ of error eoram nobis. It appears that on March 7, 1951 an information was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County charging defendant with three counts of forgery of a fictitious name in certain cheeks which he passed with intent to cheat and defraud. The information also alleged two prior convictions of forgery, one in 1940 and the other in 1948, and that defendant served a term of imprisonment therefor in the state prison. He was arraigned on March 9, 1951 and was represented by counsel. His time to plead was continued to March 16, 1951, at which time defendant pleaded not guilty, denied the prior convictions, and his trial was set for April 11, 1951. On March 30, 1951, defendant came into court with his counsel and entered the additional plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Doctors were appointed by the court to examine defendant as to his sanity and the case was reset for trial on May 2, 1951. On this latter date, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and the trial on the issue of insanity and prior convictions was set for June 25, 1951. Nothing appears in the record on this date, but on July 16, 1951, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and pleaded guilty to count one of the information. He also admitted the alleged prior convictions. On August 15, 1951, defendant was sentenced on count one to the state prison and the other counts in the information”

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

2. “And as to the presentation of new grounds based on matters known to the petitioner at the time of previous attacks on the judgment, in In re Drew (1922) 188 Cal. 717, 722 [ 207 P. 249 ], it was pointed out that the applicant for habeas corpus “not only had his day in court to attack the validity of the judgment, but ... had several such days.... The petitioner cannot be allowed to present his reasons against the validity of the judgment against him piecemeal by successive proceedings for the same general purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 F. Supp. 1449 - Karis v. Vasquez

3. ““Petitioner undoubtedly has established that at the trial there were disputed issues of fact and grave conflicts in the evidence. But the existence of such issues and conflicts at the trial, or the discovery of new evidence pertinent to them, presents no ground for intervention by us on habeas corpus.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Application of Landeros