In Re Stoliker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * section 669 of the Penal Code ‘permits the imposition of concurrent sentences when a defendant is convicted of two or more crimes * * * in different proceedings or courts’ (In re Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 745, 749 , 255 P.2d 782, 784 , emphasis added.) íj< 5¡S * ‡ J}C The Attorney General further argues that People v. Tucker, 127 Cal.App.2d 436 , 273 P.2d 934 , holds that Section 669 cannot apply to federal sentences. The trial court, however, had made no attempt there to make the sentences run concurrently, no evidence was introduced on the federal conviction, and no reasons were given by the court why state and federal sentences might not be made to run concurrently in a proper case. The opinion in that case is therefore not persuasive in the determination of the present case.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rhodes · 196 Cal. App. 2d 230 - People v. Massey

2. ““While the provision of the federal sentence that it should run ‘consecutively with any sentence imposed by any other court, for any other offense,’ might be construed to include future convictions, the propriety of sueli n construction to petitioner’s prejudice would be questionable.””

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