7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 22 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. Handy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Handy Anchor | green | “hybrid representation, whereby he would receive the services of counsel and still be permitted to file pro se motions.” | 5 |
| 2 | People v. Potts | green | “evidence highly prejudicial to defendant because it was admitted without inquiry as to the qualifications of the operator of the machine by means of which the test was given.” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Zazzetta | green | “no evidence was introduced regarding the method of testing or the qualification of the operator.” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. Taylor | green | “although an isolated act may appear innocent, a series of similar transactions, by virtue of the repetition, may be sufficient to support an arrest” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Hampton | green | “to formulate a specific ineffectiveness claim from such ambiguous language” | 3 |
| 6 | People v. Handy | green | “an accused has either the right to have counsel represent him or the right to represent himself; however, a defendant has no right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel.” | 3 |
| 7 | People v. Handy | green | “no right to some sort of hybrid representation, whereby he would receive the services of counsel and still be permitted to file pro se motions.” | 2 |
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.