People v. Lumbley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 59 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We fail to see how the position of defendant in this proceeding [in effect, a petition for writ of error coram nobis] is any different from that of a person who pleads guilty to a crime believing in fact that he was guilty of the same at the time of his plea, when, as a matter of law, the facts could not establish his guilt. In the latter situation a defendant would have the undoubted right to make a motion to change his plea. [Citations.] If, however, the defendant omits to do so, and the time has expired for the exercise of any of the statutory remedies after judgment, which might be invoked to cure the situation, and the judgment becomes final, there would be no further legal recourse by any form of judicial review. The same, we believe, is true in this case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re McVickers · In Re Seeley

2. ““This restricted scope of the writ of coram nobis has been recognized by the California courts. As stated in People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249, 256 [ 232 P. 457 , 36 A.L.R. 1435 ] (quoting from Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 [ 44 Am.Rep. 29 ]) : ‘ “It is our opinion that the courts have the power to issue writs in the nature of the writ coram nobis, but that the writ cannot be so comprehensive as at common law, for remedies are given by onr statute which did not exist at common law—the motion for a new trial and the right of appeal—and these very materially abridge the office and functions of the old writ. These afford an accused ample opportunity to present for review questions of fact, arising upon or prior to the trial, as well as questions of law; while at common law the writ of error allowed him to present to the appellate court only questions of law. Under our system all matters of fact reviewable by appeal, or upon motion, must be presented by motion for a new trial, and cannot be made the grounds of an application for the writ coram nobis. Within this rule must fall the defense of insanity as well as all other defenses existing at the time of the commission of the crime. Within this rule, too, must fall all cases of accident and surprise, of verdicts against evidence, of newly discovered evidence, and all like matters.” ’ (Quoted with approval in People v. Lumbley, 8 Cal.2d 752, 759 [ 68 P.2d 354 ]; People v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 136, 149 [ 47 P.2d 724 ].) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Cal. App. 2d 476 - People v. James

3. “We fail to see how the position of defendant in this proceeding is any different from that of a person who pleads guilty to a crime believing in fact that he was guilty of the same at the time of his plea, when, as a matter of law, the facts could not establish his guilt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Seeley