In re Grant on Discipline (2014)

green · 27 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 8

Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

201520202026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Mathews v. Becerra (2017)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

The conduct for which plaintiffs seek constitutional protection (possession of child pornography) is criminalized in California. (§§ 311.3, 5 311.11; 6 In re Grant (2014) 58 Cal.4th 469, 477 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 401 , 317 P.3d 612 ] (Grant); Luera, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 522 .) The conduct is also criminalized under federal law. ( 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.) We find guidance in Luera , which states that possession of Internet child pornography does not involve any “vital pri…

green In re M.S. CA5 (2024)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

Applicable Law and Standard of Review “When an offense is punishable by either a state prison or county jail term, it is normally considered a ‘wobbler,’ meaning that it can be either a felony or a misdemeanor.” (In re H.N. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 962 , 967; In re Grant (2014) 58 Cal.4th 469, 475, fn. 3 .) “When a minor is found to have committed a so-called ‘wobbler’ offense, the juvenile court ‘shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.’ ” (In re G.C. (2020) 8 …

green In re H.N. (2022)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(In re Grant (2014) 58 Cal.4th 469, 475, fn. 3 .) Section 311.11 contains the alternative sentencing language of a wobbler.

green In re H.N. (2022)

Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.

(In re Grant (2014) 58 Cal.4th 469, 475, fn. 3 .) Section 311.11 contains the alternative sentencing language of a wobbler.

green Mathews v. Becerra (2019)

Rule Authority · Cal.

GROBAN, J. 45 MATHEWS v. BECERRA S240156 Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye “ ‘Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens’ ” (In re Grant (2014) 58 Cal.4th 469, 477 (Grant) quoting United States v. Williams (2008) 533 U.S. 285 , 307), and “causes the child victims continuing harm by haunting the children in years to come” (Osborne v. Ohio (1990) 495 U.S. 103, 111 ).

green Sonntag v. Stewart (2015)

Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.

See, e.g., In re Cohen, 100 A.3d 529, 535 (N.J. 2014) (applying indefinite suspension for a minimum of five years and requiring attorney to reestablish fitness to practice law); In re Grant, 317 P.3d 612, 618 (Cal. 2014) (disbarring attorney on the ground that his continuation in bar would undermine public confidence in the legal profession).

disbarring attorney on the ground that his continuation in bar would undermine public confidence in the legal profession

green Bacon v. Pennsylvania State Police (2017)

Cited · Pa. Commw. Ct. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion

See In re Grant, 58 Cal.4th 469 , 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 401 , 317 P.3d 612 , 618 n.4 (2014) (individual who was convicted of an offense could “move to expunge the conviction (§ 1203.4)[.j”).

individual who was convicted of an offense could “move to expunge the conviction (§ 1203.4)[.j”

green People v. Armas CA4/1 (2022)

Cited · Cal. Ct. App. · signal: see

(Id. at p. 420.) The Supreme Court later clarified the defense applies only to “ ‘a fleeting, de minimis possession and a reflexive act of abandonment.’ ” (People v. Martin (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1180, 1191 (Martin); see CALCRIM No. 2305 [defense applies when defendant possessed controlled substance “only for a momentary or transitory period” and “in order to (abandon[,]/ [or] dispose of[,]/ [or] destroy) it”].) The Supreme Court has stated in dictum that against a charge of poss…