85 Cal. App. 4th 905 - People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant also contends that our determination that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the alleged prior serious felony conviction will become the law of the case upon remand and thereby prevent the trial court from reaching a contrary conclusion. We disagree. “The answer to this argument is clearly and easily settled by the express language of the Supreme Court in Monge. After concluding that neither state nor federal double jeopardy principles would bar a retrial of a prior conviction allegation, the court went on to note that secondary issues might well be raised. ‘For example, the Court of Appeal’s determination that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant’s prior conviction was of a serious felony is, at the very least, the law of this case. Thus, the prosecution would have to present additional evidence at a retrial of the prior conviction allegation in order to obtain a different result. What limitations might apply to this additional evidence (other than the limitations we identified in People v. Reed [(1996)] 13 Cal.4th 217 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 914 P.2d 184 ], and [People v.] Guerrero [(1988)] 44 Cal.3d 343 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 688 , 748 P.2d 1150 ]) we do not decide, because the Court of Appeal did not address that issue.’ ([People v.] Monge, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 845 .) “Although dicta, this language is dispositive of the issue before us. To the extent that the People attempt on remand to prove the prior conviction allegation using only the evidence ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Cal. App. 4th 1426 - People v. Franz

2. “when a civil case is reversed on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the case is properly terminated; it is not remanded for a new trial”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harshad & Nasir Corp. v. Global Sign Sys., Inc.