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.
31 California opinions name it 4 courts 1981–2023 5 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. Doolingreen2 sentences2021(Orange County Water Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 118 , and the cases cited therein.) “Because the trial court supervises discovery and presides over trial, it is in a much better position to weigh [the relevant] considerations and decide whether, in its discretion, the party who made the denials should be responsible for costs of proof on the issue.” (Id. at p. 119, citing People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider 2014The initial burden is on the defendant to present a specific factual showing of ‘genuine need’ for the appointment of second counsel. [Citation.] We review the decision whether to grant a request to appoint second counsel under section 987 for abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 432 .) “The abuse of discretion standard is used in many other contexts and reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand. | 3 | 5 |
San Joaquin County Department of Human Services v. Gary L.green2 sentences2019(See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 ["The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand."]; see also In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065 .) As noted, the primary purpose of RFAs is to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite trial. 2018(See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 688, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ["The abuse of discretion standard ... reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand."]; see also In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 , 1065, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 654 .) As noted, the primary purpose of RFAs is to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite trial. ( City of Glendale, supra , 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 353-354, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 ; Brooks, supra , 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 838 .) Whether a party had a re | 2 | 2 |
People v. Carrascogreen2 sentences2015(See People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 955 [" 'The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand.' "].) 9 In a footnote in his reply brief, Spells suggests for the first time that the definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" set forth in Proposition 47, enacted in November 2014, applies to his case. 2015(See People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 955 [" 'The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand' "].) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Johnson's petition for recall of sentence. 11 IV. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Roldangreen2 sentences2021(Orange County Water Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 118 , and the cases cited therein.) “Because the trial court supervises discovery and presides over trial, it is in a much better position to weigh [the relevant] considerations and decide whether, in its discretion, the party who made the denials should be responsible for costs of proof on the issue.” (Id. at p. 119, citing People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider 2019(See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 ["The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand."]; see also In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065 .) As noted, the primary purpose of RFAs is to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite trial. | 1 | 8 |
City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLCgreen2 sentences2019(City of Glendale, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 353-354; Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509 .) Whether a party had a reasonable, good faith belief he or she would prevail on an issue at trial, and therefore force a trial on that issue, implicates core discretionary functions of the trial court: management of the discovery and trial proceedings before it. 2018(See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 688, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ["The abuse of discretion standard ... reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand."]; see also In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 , 1065, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 654 .) As noted, the primary purpose of RFAs is to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite trial. ( City of Glendale, supra , 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 353-354, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 ; Brooks, supra , 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 838 .) Whether a party had a re | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lancastergreen2 sentences2014A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, 6 or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 71 .) Because the trial court’s order relieving attorney Kaye is presumed correct, including as to matters on which the record is silent, it is defendant’s burden on appeal to provide an adequate record that allows us to analyze his abuse of discretion claim. 2009A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 71 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 , 158 P.3d 157 ].) B. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Silvagreen2 sentences2013Since the trial court was in the best position to observe the prospective jurors‘ demeanor and the manner in which the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges, the implied finding, that the prosecutor‘s reasons for excusing Elizabeth G., including the demeanor-based reason, were 20 sincere and genuine, is entitled to ‗great deference‘ on appeal. [Citations.]‖ (Ibid., italics added.) The court added that it found nothing ―in the record to directly contradict‖ the trial court‘s ruling and noted that the prosecutor accepted the jury ―14 times with Elizabeth G. seated in the jury box.‖ (Ibi 2013Since the trial court was in the best position to observe the prospective jurors’ demeanor and the manner in which the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges, the implied finding, that the prosecutor’s reasons for excusing Elizabeth G., including the demeanor-based reason, were sincere and genuine, is entitled to ‘great deference’ on appeal. [Citations.]” (Ibid., italics added.) The court added that it found nothing “in the record to directly contradict” the trial court’s ruling and noted that the prosecutor accepted the jury “74 times with Elizabeth G. seated in the jury box.” (Ibid.) | 1 | 2 |
Miller-El v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2013(Reynoso, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 925 .) These maneuvers violate the high court‘s admonition that adjudication of a Batson challenge ―does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis.‖ (Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 252 .) A prosecutor‘s strike must ―stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he gives,‖ regardless of whether ―a trial judge, or an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as false.‖ (Ibid.) It is no doubt true that ―a myriad of factors readily observable by those present in the courtroom, but not by those who are reviewing 2013(Reynoso, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 925 .) These maneuvers violate the high court’s admonition that adjudication of a Batson challenge “does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis.” (Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 252.) A prosecutor’s strike must “stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he gives,” regardless of whether “a trial judge, or an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as false.” (Ibid.) It is no doubt true that “a myriad of factors readily observable by those present in the courtroom, but not by those who are reviewing | 1 | 2 |
Bloxham v. Saldingergreen1 sentence2021(Orange County Water Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 118 , and the cases cited therein.) “Because the trial court supervises discovery and presides over trial, it is in a much better position to weigh [the relevant] considerations and decide whether, in its discretion, the party who made the denials should be responsible for costs of proof on the issue.” (Id. at p. 119, citing People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider | 1 | 1 |
Chase v. Blue Cross of Californiagreen1 sentence2020(See Chase, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1151, fn. 8 [use of “waiver” in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 includes “forfeiture” of the right as well]; cf. Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 983-984 [waiver may be found from evidence of a party’s unreasonable and substantial delay where claimant has acted with reasonable diligence].) Insurers contend “[t]he analogy to contractual arbitration in the statutory appraisal context is inapt.” In their view, “[b]ecause mandatory appraisal of losses payable under fire insurance policies involves a ‘substantive’ right . . . that right cannot be waiv | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2009(See People v. Superior Court (Ferguson) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1529 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 481 ].) We agree with Flores that the rulings being challenged were discretionary, so the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion. “ ‘The abuse of discretion standard is used in many other contexts and reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand. 2009(See People v. Superior Court (Ferguson) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1529 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 481 ].) We agree with Flores that the rulings being challenged were discretionary, so the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion. “ ‘The abuse of discretion standard is used in many other contexts and reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jenangreen2 sentences2008(See People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 688 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand”]; People v. Conner, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 149 [trial court is in the best position to assess the impact of events giving rise to possible prosecutorial conflicts]; People v. Jenan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 782, 793 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 ] [abuse of discretion standard applies because the trial court is in the best position to make relevant conflict determinations].) Nothing suggests to us t 2008(See People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 688 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand”]; People v. Conner, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 149 [trial court is in the best position to assess the impact of events giving rise to possible prosecutorial conflicts]; People v. Jenan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 782, 793 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 771 ] [abuse of discretion standard applies because the trial court is in the best position to make relevant conflict determinations].) Nothing suggests to us t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2007A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it `exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" ( People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 688 , 27 Cal. Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 .) The right of a capital defendant to the resources necessary for a full defense must be carefully considered, and the demands of pretrial preparation in a complex case weigh in favor of appointing an additional attorney. ( Keenan v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 430-432, 180 Cal.Rptr. 489 , 640 P 2007A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it `exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" ( People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 688 , 27 Cal. Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 .) The right of a capital defendant to the resources necessary for a full defense must be carefully considered, and the demands of pretrial preparation in a complex case weigh in favor of appointing an additional attorney. ( Keenan v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 430-432, 180 Cal.Rptr. 489 , 640 P | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lawleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ochoagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jalilie v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Memrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hocharian v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co.
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 688, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ["The abuse of discretion standard ... reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand."]; see also In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 , 1065, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 654 .) As noted, the primary purpose of RFAs is to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite trial. ( City of Glendale, supra , 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 353-354, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 ; Brooks, supra , 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 838 .) Whether a party had a re 2018(See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 688, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ["The abuse of discretion standard ... reflects the trial court's superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand."]; see also In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 , 1065, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 654 .) As noted, the primary purpose of RFAs is to narrow the issues in dispute and expedite trial. ( City of Glendale, supra , 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 353-354, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 ; Brooks, supra , 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 838 .) Whether a party had a re | 2 | 2018–2019 |
People v. Reynoso
green
2 sentences2013(Ibid.) Noting that she also had ―no prior jury experience and no past contact with the criminal justice system‖ — facts not mentioned by the prosecutor in explaining this strike — the court concluded that a prosecutor ―arguably could conclude in sincerity‖ that a prospective juror like Elizabeth G. ―would not be the best type of juror for the case.‖ (Id. at pp. 924–925.) The court justified this conclusion with additional speculation: ―Such a determination might be further supported by a myriad of factors readily observable by those present in the courtroom, but not by those who are reviewing 2013(Reynoso, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 925 .) These maneuvers violate the high court‘s admonition that adjudication of a Batson challenge ―does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis.‖ (Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 252 .) A prosecutor‘s strike must ―stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he gives,‖ regardless of whether ―a trial judge, or an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as false.‖ (Ibid.) It is no doubt true that ―a myriad of factors readily observable by those present in the courtroom, but not by those who are reviewing | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Denham v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1981Moreover, as this court held in Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at page 563 , section 583, subdivision (a) imposes "no requirement that the motion to dismiss `must' be granted unless opposed by an adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." Contrary to the implication in Justice Clark's assertion, this is precisely the requirement which today's decision imposes on trial courts hearing section 581a motions. [8] It is interesting to note that the briefs of petitioner and plaintiff assume opposite conclusions on the reasonable diligence issue without the benefit of a factual fin 1981Moreover, as this court held in Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at page 563 , section 583 , subdivision (a) imposes "no requirement that the motion to dismiss `must' be granted unless opposed by an adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." Contrary to the implication in Justice Clark's assertion, this is precisely the requirement which today's decision imposes on trial courts hearing section 581a motions. 8 It is interesting to note that the briefs of petitioner and plaintiff assume opposite conclusions on the reasonable diligence issue without the benefit of a factual find | 2 | 1981–1981 |
McAllister v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2023App. Bd., supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 414 .) Defendant argues there is no way to know whether the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Guide relied upon by the prosecution addressed all the myriad factors that could influence the flash point of gasoline. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Russel
green
1 sentence2021Obviously the term is a broad and elastic one [citation] which we have equated with ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] We have also declared that the ‘only limitation that the law had placed upon the exercise of discretionary judicial power is, that it must not be abused’ [Citation].” (People v. Russel (1968) 69 Cal.2d 187 , 193- 194, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 575 .) “The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and we | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Blackwell
green
1 sentence2021(Blackwell, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 200 .) So long “as a trial court gives due consideration to an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics, as required by Miller[, supra,] it may, in exercising its discretion under . . . section 190.5, subdivision (b), give such weight to the relevant factors as it reasonably determines is appropriate under all the circumstances of the case.” (People v. Palafox (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 68, 73 .) Here, the trial court carefully catalogued a myriad of factors in aggravation and mitigation, including the extreme cruelty involved in the double murder, whic | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2021Obviously the term is a broad and elastic one [citation] which we have equated with ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] We have also declared that the ‘only limitation that the law had placed upon the exercise of discretionary judicial power is, that it must not be abused’ [Citation].” (People v. Russel (1968) 69 Cal.2d 187 , 193- 194, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 575 .) “The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and we | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Arnold Eng'g Co.
green
2 sentences2021(Orange County Water Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 118 , and the cases cited therein.) “Because the trial court supervises discovery and presides over trial, it is in a much better position to weigh [the relevant] considerations and decide whether, in its discretion, the party who made the denials should be responsible for costs of proof on the issue.” (Id. at p. 119, citing People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider 2021(Orange County Water Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 118 , and the cases cited therein.) “Because the trial court supervises discovery and presides over trial, it is in a much better position to weigh [the relevant] considerations and decide whether, in its discretion, the party who made the denials should be responsible for costs of proof on the issue.” (Id. at p. 119, citing People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 688 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 [abuse of discretion standard “reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Palafox
green
1 sentence2021(Blackwell, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 200 .) So long “as a trial court gives due consideration to an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics, as required by Miller[, supra,] it may, in exercising its discretion under . . . section 190.5, subdivision (b), give such weight to the relevant factors as it reasonably determines is appropriate under all the circumstances of the case.” (People v. Palafox (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 68, 73 .) Here, the trial court carefully catalogued a myriad of factors in aggravation and mitigation, including the extreme cruelty involved in the double murder, whic | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Groundwater Cases
green
2 sentences2018(See In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659 , 693, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 ["Management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ...."]; Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 491 , 498, 256 Cal.Rptr. 296 ["Since trial management is a discretionary area, the proper standard of review for a challenge to trial management orders is abuse of discretion."].) An abuse of discretion standard is therefore proper. 2018(See In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659 , 693, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 ["Management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ...."]; Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 491 , 498, 256 Cal.Rptr. 296 ["Since trial management is a discretionary area, the proper standard of review for a challenge to trial management orders is abuse of discretion."].) An abuse of discretion standard is therefore proper. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Moyal v. Lanphear
green
2 sentences2018(See In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659 , 693, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 ["Management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ...."]; Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 491 , 498, 256 Cal.Rptr. 296 ["Since trial management is a discretionary area, the proper standard of review for a challenge to trial management orders is abuse of discretion."].) An abuse of discretion standard is therefore proper. 2018(See In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659 , 693, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 ["Management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ...."]; Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 491 , 498, 256 Cal.Rptr. 296 ["Since trial management is a discretionary area, the proper standard of review for a challenge to trial management orders is abuse of discretion."].) An abuse of discretion standard is therefore proper. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Hajek and Vo
green
2 sentences2015A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1180 .) Subdivision (g) of section 1170.126 (of Proposition 36) provides: “In exercising its discretion in subdivision (f), the court may consider: [¶] (1) The petitioner’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and th 2015(People v. Hajek and Vo, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1180 .) Given Guzman’s long and undisputed record of criminality, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Guzman posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety within the meaning of Proposition 36, and denying the petition. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Sapp
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 256 .) To establish an abuse of discretion, defendant has the burden on appeal of showing that the trial court’s decision to relieve attorney Kaye and replace him with panel counsel was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. “‘The abuse of discretion standard . . . reflects the trial court’s superior ability to consider and weigh the myriad factors that are relevant to the decision at hand. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence2013(Harris, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 375 ; People v. Parra (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 222, 225 .) Bruns opined Calvo possessed the crack cocaine for sale based on the following facts: Calvo possessed an amount of crack cocaine that was worth approximately $60 and could be used for anywhere between 15 to 50 uses depending on the user. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013(Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538 .) Courts have identified a myriad of factors to be used in determining whether to find one entity the alter ego of another, such as commingling of funds and other assets, 10 use of same offices and employees, use of one entity as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of another, and disregard of corporate formalities. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Parra
green
1 sentence2013(Harris, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 375 ; People v. Parra (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 222, 225 .) Bruns opined Calvo possessed the crack cocaine for sale based on the following facts: Calvo possessed an amount of crack cocaine that was worth approximately $60 and could be used for anywhere between 15 to 50 uses depending on the user. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Keenan v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2007A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it `exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" ( People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 688 , 27 Cal. Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 .) The right of a capital defendant to the resources necessary for a full defense must be carefully considered, and the demands of pretrial preparation in a complex case weigh in favor of appointing an additional attorney. ( Keenan v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 430-432, 180 Cal.Rptr. 489 , 640 P 2007A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless it `exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" ( People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 688 , 27 Cal. Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 .) The right of a capital defendant to the resources necessary for a full defense must be carefully considered, and the demands of pretrial preparation in a complex case weigh in favor of appointing an additional attorney. ( Keenan v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 430-432, 180 Cal.Rptr. 489 , 640 P | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| City of Dayton v. Sutherland green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| White v. Illinois green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Idaho v. Wright green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Lilly v. Virginia green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Fearon green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Wheeler green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Contest of a Certain Special Election v. Special Road Districts Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Craig v. Municipal Court green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Pitchess v. Superior Court red | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
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.