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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Foxgreen2 sentences2013(See, e.g., People v. Fox (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 178, 180-182 , 140 Cal.Rptr. 615 [affidavit of voter registration]; People v. Olf (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 101 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 390 [application for a permit to issue securities]; see also People v. Wood (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 24 , 28–29, 325 P.2d 1014 [questioning whether documents containing false information filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were instruments under § 115, but holding that even if they were, prosecution under § 115 was precluded by special Veh. 2013(See, e.g., People v. Fox (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 178, 180-182 , 140 Cal.Rptr. 615 [affidavit of voter registration]; People v. Olf (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 101 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 390 [application for a permit to issue securities]; see also People v. Wood (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 24 , 28–29, 325 P.2d 1014 [questioning whether documents containing false information filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were instruments under § 115, but holding that even if they were, prosecution under § 115 was precluded by special Veh. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Woodgreen2 sentences2013(See, e.g., People v. Fox (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 178, 180-182 , 140 Cal.Rptr. 615 [affidavit of voter registration]; People v. Olf (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 101 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 390 [application for a permit to issue securities]; see also People v. Wood (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 24 , 28–29, 325 P.2d 1014 [questioning whether documents containing false information filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were instruments under § 115, but holding that even if they were, prosecution under § 115 was precluded by special Veh. 2013(See, e.g., People v. Fox (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 178, 180-182 , 140 Cal.Rptr. 615 [affidavit of voter registration]; People v. Olf (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 101 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 390 [application for a permit to issue securities]; see also People v. Wood (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 24 , 28–29, 325 P.2d 1014 [questioning whether documents containing false information filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were instruments under § 115, but holding that even if they were, prosecution under § 115 was precluded by special Veh. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Murphygreen2 sentences2018(Murphy, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 89 .) Murphy concluded that “even though the making of a false oral report of vehicle theft would not violate the 7 general statute, our analysis should focus on the question of whether the filing of a false vehicle theft report would necessarily or commonly result in a violation of Penal Code section 115.” (Id. at p. 91.) Thereafter, Murphy concluded that the filing of a false vehicle theft report in violation of Vehicle Code section 10501 would commonly result in a violation of section 115, rendering Williamson applicable and precluding the defendant’s prosec 2018(Murphy, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 89 .) Murphy concluded that “even though the making of a false oral report of vehicle theft would not violate the 7 general statute, our analysis should focus on the question of whether the filing of a false vehicle theft report would necessarily or commonly result in a violation of Penal Code section 115.” (Id. at p. 91.) Thereafter, Murphy concluded that the filing of a false vehicle theft report in violation of Vehicle Code section 10501 would commonly result in a violation of section 115, rendering Williamson applicable and precluding the defendant’s prosec | 1 | 3 |
People v. Olfgreen2 sentences2013(See, e.g., People v. Fox (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 178, 180-182 , 140 Cal.Rptr. 615 [affidavit of voter registration]; People v. Olf (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 101 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 390 [application for a permit to issue securities]; see also People v. Wood (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 24 , 28–29, 325 P.2d 1014 [questioning whether documents containing false information filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were instruments under § 115, but holding that even if they were, prosecution under § 115 was precluded by special Veh. 2013(See, e.g., People v. Fox (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 178, 180-182 , 140 Cal.Rptr. 615 [affidavit of voter registration]; People v. Olf (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 101 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 390 [application for a permit to issue securities]; see also People v. Wood (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 24 , 28–29, 325 P.2d 1014 [questioning whether documents containing false information filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were instruments under § 115, but holding that even if they were, prosecution under § 115 was precluded by special Veh. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Frasergreen2 sentences1992An early decision of our Supreme Court interpreting the word “instrument” as used in the Civil Code defined it as a “written paper or instrument signed and delivered by one person to another, transferring the title to or creating a lien on property, or giving a right to a debt or a duty.” (Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565 .) This definition of the word “instrument” was later adopted and modified in an appeal from a demurrer to a prosecution under section 115, with the appellate court there holding an “instrument” was an “agreement expressed in writing, signed, and delivered from one pers 1992An early decision of our Supreme Court interpreting the word “instrument” as used in the Civil Code defined it as a “written paper or instrument signed and delivered by one person to another, transferring the title to or creating a lien on property, or giving a right to a debt or a duty.” (Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565 .) This definition of the word “instrument” was later adopted and modified in an appeal from a demurrer to a prosecution under section 115, with the appellate court there holding an “instrument” was an “agreement expressed in writing, signed, and delivered from one pers | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hassan
green
1 sentence2011In People v. Hassan, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at page 1316 , the court *94 concluded that confidential marriage certificates are instruments “given the requirement that they be recorded, their importance, and the vast legal consequences that flow from them.” 4 Because defendant’s conviction must be reversed, we need not reach the issue of whether defendant’s prosecution under Penal Code section 115 is also precluded by Vehicle Code section 20. * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of th | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hoag v. Howard
green
1 sentence1992An early decision of our Supreme Court interpreting the word “instrument” as used in the Civil Code defined it as a “written paper or instrument signed and delivered by one person to another, transferring the title to or creating a lien on property, or giving a right to a debt or a duty.” (Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565 .) This definition of the word “instrument” was later adopted and modified in an appeal from a demurrer to a prosecution under section 115, with the appellate court there holding an “instrument” was an “agreement expressed in writing, signed, and delivered from one pers | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.