7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 95 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 In Re Avena.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Avena Anchor | green | “under the 'cumulative error' doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have a cumulative effect that is prejudicial.” | 60 |
| 2 | People v. Shabazz | green | “the defendant intentionally killed the victim while the defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (f) of section 186.22, and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang.” | 12 |
| 3 | People v. Superior Court (Pearson) | green | “the legislature may not amend an initiative statute without subsequent voter approval unless the initiative permits such amendment, 'and then only upon whatever conditions the voters attached to the legislature's amendatory powers.” | 8 |
| 4 | People v. Superior Court (Pearson) | green | “described an amendment as 'a legislative act designed to change an existing initiative statute by adding or taking from it some particular provision.' but this does not mean that any legislation that concerns the same subject matter as an initiative, or even augments an initiati…” | 4 |
| 5 | People v. Superior Court (Pearson) | green | “section 190.2, subd. (a)(22) was enacted as part of proposition 21, the gang violence and juvenile crime prevention act of 1998, an initiative measure adopted by the electorate at the march 2000 primary election.” | 4 |
| 6 | People v. Henriquez | green | “their cumulative effect does not warrant reversal of the judgment.” | 4 |
| 7 | People v. Jovan B. | green | “that the term 'criminal street gang' as incorporated in the gang-murder special-circumstance statute was 'intended to conform at all times' and 'remain permanently parallel' to section 186.22.” | 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.