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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2018 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. Blackburngreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1123 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 458 , 354 P.3d 268 ] [in questions of statutory interpretation, courts “begin with the text” and “ ‘[i]f no ambiguity appears in the statutory language, we presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls’ ”].) 2 “[S]hoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dolla 2016(See People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1123 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 458 , 354 P.3d 268 ] [in questions of statutory interpretation, courts “begin with the text” and “ ‘[i]f no ambiguity appears in the statutory language, we presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls’ ”].) 2 “[S]hoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dolla | 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. Jimenez
green
2 sentences2018It held that "entering a commercial establishment with the intent to use a stolen credit card to purchase property valued at no more than $950 constitutes shoplifting," a misdemeanor (§ 459.5), eligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. ( People v. Garrett , supra , 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 84 , 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 .) It said, "[T]he dispositive issue is whether [the defendant's] act fell within the definition of 'shoplifting' under Section 459.5." ( Id . at p. 88, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 , italics added.) "[W]e must interpret Section 459.5 as if it defined shoplifting to mean 'entering a commercial e 2018It held that "entering a commercial establishment with the intent to use a stolen credit card to purchase property valued at no more than $950 constitutes shoplifting," a misdemeanor (§ 459.5), eligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. ( People v. Garrett , supra , 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 84 , 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 .) It said, "[T]he dispositive issue is whether [the defendant's] act fell within the definition of 'shoplifting' under Section 459.5." ( Id . at p. 88, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 , italics added.) "[W]e must interpret Section 459.5 as if it defined shoplifting to mean 'entering a commercial e | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Garrett
green
2 sentences2018It held that "entering a commercial establishment with the intent to use a stolen credit card to purchase property valued at no more than $950 constitutes shoplifting," a misdemeanor (§ 459.5), eligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. ( People v. Garrett , supra , 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 84 , 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 .) It said, "[T]he dispositive issue is whether [the defendant's] act fell within the definition of 'shoplifting' under Section 459.5." ( Id . at p. 88, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 , italics added.) "[W]e must interpret Section 459.5 as if it defined shoplifting to mean 'entering a commercial e 2018It held that "entering a commercial establishment with the intent to use a stolen credit card to purchase property valued at no more than $950 constitutes shoplifting," a misdemeanor (§ 459.5), eligible for Proposition 47 resentencing. ( People v. Garrett , supra , 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 84 , 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 .) It said, "[T]he dispositive issue is whether [the defendant's] act fell within the definition of 'shoplifting' under Section 459.5." ( Id . at p. 88, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 , italics added.) "[W]e must interpret Section 459.5 as if it defined shoplifting to mean 'entering a commercial e | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Ashley
green
1 sentence2016Indictments and informations charging [any] crime of 'theft' can now simply allege an 'unlawful taking . . .' [citation] . . . [and guilt may be found by the jury] if they find that an 'unlawful taking' has been proved." (People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, 258 .) Even though a "layperson might understand 'shoplifting' to mean entering a retail store during regular business hours with the intent to steal displayed merchandise, . . . that is not how the voters defined 'shoplifting' in section 459.5; instead, they defined it as entering a commercial establishment during business hours with th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.