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 2 courts 1967–2025 1 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. Lovejoygreen1 sentence2025In ruling on the adequacy of a prima facie showing under section 1172.6 however, “the issue is not whether there was a theoretical error in the jury instructions”, but rather whether it is possible the defendant was convicted of “murder based on a now-impermissible theory, i.e., the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (Lovejoy, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 867.) The “natural and probable consequences instruction as applied to a conspiracy [ ] is problematic in this context only where a defendant is convicted of murder or attempted murder based on a conspiracy to commit ‘a lesser crime | 1 | 1 |
Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc.green2 sentences2015(See, e.g., Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 357, 367-368 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 701 ] [developer could not sue manufacturers of defective sinks for equitable indemnity or contribution; no privity of contract].) Implied Contract — Promissory Estoppel State argues that Moffatt, at Major’s request, reviewed and approved the mix design, which created an “implied contract” between Major and Moffatt. *1233 We address this theoretical claim even though it may be inapposite. 3 The concrete mix design (written by State, which was a concrete designer and supplier) called 2015(See, e.g., Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 357, 367-368 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 701 ] [developer could not sue manufacturers of defective sinks for equitable indemnity or contribution; no privity of contract].) Implied Contract — Promissory Estoppel State argues that Moffatt, at Major’s request, reviewed and approved the mix design, which created an “implied contract” between Major and Moffatt. *1233 We address this theoretical claim even though it may be inapposite. 3 The concrete mix design (written by State, which was a concrete designer and supplier) called | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences1985In my view, Press-Enterprise Co., supra, 37 Cal.3d 772 , and the other cases cited above, stand for the proposition that the primary interest of the trial court must be to protect a juvenile or defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial; the public's right of access must give way when there is a conflict with this constitutional right. 1985In my view, Press-Enterprise Co., supra, 37 Cal.3d 772 , and the other cases cited above, stand for the proposition that the primary interest of the trial court must be to protect a juvenile or defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial; the public’s right of access must give way when there is a conflict with this constitutional right. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
San Diego County Department of Public Welfare v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1983(Pp. 323-324.) It was stated “[t]he legislative focus of the LPS Act is on protecting the nondangerous gravely disabled person and allowing that person to live safely in freedom or the least restrictive alternative if he or she can do so, with or without the aid of appropriate others; it is not to force the person proposed for conservatorship to pass a theoretical test of ability to survive and provide necessities alone where there are in fact willing responsible family, friends and others ready to help." (P. 326.) The conclusion reached in Davis was recently adopted by Conservatorship of Wils 1983(Pp. 323-324.) It was stated “[t]he legislative focus of the LPS Act is on protecting the nondangerous gravely disabled person and allowing that person to live safely in freedom or the least restrictive alternative if he or she can do so, with or without the aid of appropriate others; it is not to force the person proposed for conservatorship to pass a theoretical test of ability to survive and provide necessities alone where there are in fact willing responsible family, friends and others ready to help." (P. 326.) The conclusion reached in Davis was recently adopted by Conservatorship of Wils | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Peterson v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence1967Co., supra, 164 Cal.App.2d 517 , where the trial court found that a notice of cancellation had been sent by mistake. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.