Rowe v. Yuba County
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- County of Fresno v. Superior Court of Fresno Cty. (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa (Supreme Court of the United States 1989)
- Luke v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)
- Clark v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)
- Hill v. Superior Court (Cal. 1956)
- Department of Mental Hygiene v. Dunham (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)
- People ex rel. Brown v. Board of Supervisors (New York Supreme Court 1885)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
- Cunningham v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
- County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)
- Jackson v. State (Alaska 1966)
- Marks v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)
- United States v. Edward J. Dillon, Petition of Manley B. Strayer (9th Cir. 1965)
- People v. Agnew (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
- People v. Agnew (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1952)
- Ruckenbrod v. Mullins (Utah 1943)
- Dorris v. Crowder (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)
- State v. Hudson (R.I. 1935)
- Home Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Carrico (Neb. 1932)
- People v. Plata (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1927)
- Pueblo v. Plata (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1927)
- Hyatt v. Hamilton County (Iowa 1903)
- Johnson v. Whiteside County (Ill. 1884)
- Hassell v. Van Houten (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1884)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, J. and Cope, J concurring.
The only question presented for consideration by the record in this case is, whether an attorney and counsellor appointed by the Court of Sessions to defend a pauper prisoner arraigned before it on an indictment for felony, is entitled to charge the county for his professional services—the appointment being made upon the expression of a desire of the prisoner to have the assistance of counsel.
We are clear that the action cannot be maintained. The Court of Sessions is not authorized to create any charge against the county, except in certain special cases, of which the employment of counsel for parties under indictment is not one. Besides, it is part of the general duty of counsel to render their professional services to persons accused of crime, who are destitute of means, upon the appointment of the Court, when not inconsistent with their' obligations to others; and for compensation, they must trust to the possible future ability of the parties. Counsel are not considered at liberty to reject, under circumstances of this character, the cause of the defenseless, because no provision for their compensation is made by law. The duty imposed in this way may, it is true, be carried to unreasonable length, so as to become exceedingly burdensome; but we have heard of no complaints of this character. It is usual for the Court to apportion the duty among the different members of the profession practicing before it, so as to render it as light upon each as possible.
The judgment must be reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the defendant; and it is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.