61 Cal. 2d 430 - People v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 215 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 233 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably 8 Cal. 4th 548 - Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994), People v. Doolin (2009)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 215 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Douglas v. People of State of California
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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional right, which has been carefully guarded by the courts of this state.' ( In re James, 38 Cal.2d 302, 310 [ 240 P.2d 596 ].) Meaningfully applied, the right to counsel includes the opportunity to receive `effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.' ( Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71 [ 77 L.Ed. 158, 172 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ]; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 790 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]). To be sure, this right may be waived ( Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , [ 46 A.L.R. 357 , 362]; People v. Rocco, 209 Cal. 68 [ 285 P. 704 ]), but `a finding of waiver is not lightly to be made.' ( Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155, 161 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 167, 172 , 78 S.Ct. 191 ].) `It has been pointed out that "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“fundamental constitutional right, which has been carefully guarded by the courts of this state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the right to counsel may not be used to subvert the orderly and efficient administration of justice ( People v. Thomas, 58 Cal.2d 121, 131 [ 23 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 373 P.2d 97 ]; United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916, 936 ), and its utilization as a tool for dilatory purposes may not be permitted ( People v. Adamson, 34 Cal.2d 320, 332-333 [ 210 P.2d 13 ].),”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.