People v. Adamson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 292 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 307 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In any event, ‘ In this state a motion to vacate a judgment in the nature of a petition for coram nobis is a remedy of narrow scope. (Citing cases.) Its purpose is to secure relief, where no other remedy exists, from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if the trial court had known it and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not then known to the court. (Citing cases.) The applicant for the 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.” (Citing eases.) ’ ””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Cal. App. 2d 173 - People v. Emery · People v. Hardison

2. ““With expansion of the function of habeas corpus in this state, an application for that writ has become the proper remedy to attack collaterally a judgment of conviction which has been obtained in violation of fundamental constitutional rights. Thus, the appropriate writ to secure relief from a judgment of conviction obtained by the use of false testimony known by the prosecution to be false is not coram nobis but habeas corpus. * * * ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Teets · In Re Moilanen

3. ““The proceeding designated ‘coram nobis’ in this state is a court-made proceeding and, within the limits of the constitutional requirements pointed out in People v. Shorts (1948), supra, 32 Cal.2d 502, 506 [ 197 P.2d 330 ], must, therefore, be subject to such limitations and procedural requirements as the creating court may prescribe. Such proceeding is not subject to all the rules applicable to an original trial; it is an attack upon a judgment which has become final and in favor of which there are strong presumptions of regularity; the ‘petition’ is regarded as a motion to vacate the judgment; it is not a complaint nor does it initiate an independent action (In re Paiva (1948), 31 Cal.2d 503, 509 [ 190 P.2d 604 ]). The facts that the People filed inter alia a document entitled ‘Demurrer’ and that the trial court made an order (superseded by the order now appealed from) that the ‘Demurrer ... is sustained without leave to amend’ did not require the trial court and do not require this court to accept every allegation of the petition and supporting affidavits at face value. The trial court considered, and we are entitled to consider, the circumstances in which those allegations were made and the People’s affidavits controverting them.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 121 Cal. App. 2d 548 - People v. Marvich