Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Eubanks.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Eubanks Anchor | green | “in each case, the trial court must consider the entire complex of facts surrounding the conflict to determine whether the conflict makes fair and impartial treatment of the defendant unlikely.” | 10 |
| 2 | Haraguchi v. Superior Court | green | “trial courts are in a better position than appellate courts to assess witness credibility, make findings of fact, and evaluate the consequences of a potential conflict in light of the entirety of a case, a case they inevitably will be more familiar with than the appellate courts…” | 6 |
| 3 | Murgia v. Municipal Court | red | “a criminal defendant may object . . . to the maintenance of the prosecution on the ground of deliberate invidious discrimination in the enforcement of the law” | 3 |
| 4 | Millsap v. Superior Court | green | “the trial judge who had presided over the case, and who was familiar with the parties and their counsel, found no basis for recusal” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Griffin | red | “sets forth the procedure for a defendant to seek an order . . . recusing a member of the district attorney's office, or the office as a whole, for a conflict of interest.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.