27 California opinions name it 4 courts 1942–2022 4 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. Silvagreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 3 | 3 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 3 | 3 |
People v. Ritchiegreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 2 | 3 |
People v. Beasleygreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 2 | 3 |
People v. Franklingreen2 sentences1986It is not enough that on review the reporter’s transcript may show the trial court’s motivation; the minutes must reflect the reason “so that all may know why this great power was exercised.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d 937, 944 ; accord, People v. Franklin, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, 15-16 .) “The statute does not say and the cases have not allowed the interpretation that ‘the reasons shall appear somewhere in the record.’ There is a difference between minutes of the court and oral pronouncement. 1986It is not enough that on review the reporter's transcript may show the trial court's motivation; the minutes must reflect the reason "so that all may know why this great power was exercised.'" [Citations.]" ( People v. Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d 937, 944 ; accord, People v. Franklin, supra, 84 Cal. App.3d Supp. 13, 15-16.) "The statute does not say and the cases have not allowed the interpretation that `the reasons shall appear somewhere in the record.' There is a difference between minutes of the court and oral pronouncement. | 2 | 2 |
People v. McAlonangreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 2 | 2 |
People v. Borouskgreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 2 | 2 |
People v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2020Because the proposition the voters were considering expressed the first part but not the second part of section 2900.5’s rule, and the purpose behind that rule is irrelevant to resentencing under Proposition 47, no reason appears to assume the voters believed the proposition would include what it did not state, namely, that credit for time served could reduce the period of parole.” ( Morales, supra, at p. 406 .) In addition, and further assuming the seemingly mandatory statutory language [in the Proposition 47 statute] was ambiguous, the Supreme Court found the ballot materials concerning Prop 2020Because the proposition the voters were considering expressed the first part but not the second part of section 2900.5’s rule, and the purpose behind that rule is irrelevant to resentencing under Proposition 47, no reason appears to assume the voters believed the proposition would include what it did not state, namely, that credit for time served could reduce the period of parole.” ( Morales, supra, at p. 406 .) In addition, and further assuming the seemingly mandatory statutory language [in the Proposition 47 statute] was ambiguous, the Supreme Court found the ballot materials concerning Prop | 1 | 3 |
People v. Curtissgreen2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 1 | 2 |
Holmes v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2020We may further assume the Legislature was aware that the purpose behind the rule in section 1170(a)(3), like section 2900.5, was ‘to equalize the treatment of ... those who could not post bail.’ [Citation.] Consequently, had the Legislature not intended to leave the issue of parole to the trial court’s discretion in section 1170.95, it could have easily made specific reference to section 1170(a)(3) or otherwise modified the court’s right to impose a parole period. [Citations.] Instead, the Legislature gave the trial court unfettered discretion to impose a period of parole at the completion of | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. William C.green1 sentence2020(See In re Ethan C. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 610, 638 [“When language is included in one portion of a statute, its omission from a different portion addressing a similar subject suggests that the omission was purposeful ”]; People v. Roach (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 178, 185 [“Additional restrictions on a trial court’s authority at resentencing could have been included in section 1170.18, but were not”].) Instead, the Legislature gave the trial court unfettered discretion to impose a period of parole at the completion of any sentence imposed under section 1170.95. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Roachgreen1 sentence2020(See In re Ethan C. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 610, 638 [“When language is included in one portion of a statute, its omission from a different portion addressing a similar subject suggests that the omission was purposeful ”]; People v. Roach (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 178, 185 [“Additional restrictions on a trial court’s authority at resentencing could have been included in section 1170.18, but were not”].) Instead, the Legislature gave the trial court unfettered discretion to impose a period of parole at the completion of any sentence imposed under section 1170.95. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pinongreen2 sentences2018Indeed, following many Proposition 47 resentencings, a defendant will not be subject to PRCS because "PRCS applies only to felony convictions. (§§ 3450, subd. (b)(5), 3451, subd. (a).) There is no PRCS for misdemeanors." ( People v. Elizalde (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1062 , 1065, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 ; accord, People v. Pinon (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 956 , 965, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 ( Pinon ) ["misdemeanor offenders do not serve parole or PRCS after completing a term in jail"].) Thus, courts have found PRCS inapplicable for defendants who had a felony sentence reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposit 2018Indeed, following many Proposition 47 resentencings, a defendant will not be subject to PRCS because "PRCS applies only to felony convictions. (§§ 3450, subd. (b)(5), 3451, subd. (a).) There is no PRCS for misdemeanors." ( People v. Elizalde (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1062 , 1065, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 ; accord, People v. Pinon (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 956 , 965, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 ( Pinon ) ["misdemeanor offenders do not serve parole or PRCS after completing a term in jail"].) Thus, courts have found PRCS inapplicable for defendants who had a felony sentence reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposit | 1 | 1 |
People v. Elizaldegreen2 sentences2018Indeed, following many Proposition 47 resentencings, a defendant will not be subject to PRCS because "PRCS applies only to felony convictions. (§§ 3450, subd. (b)(5), 3451, subd. (a).) There is no PRCS for misdemeanors." ( People v. Elizalde (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1062 , 1065, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 ; accord, People v. Pinon (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 956 , 965, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 ( Pinon ) ["misdemeanor offenders do not serve parole or PRCS after completing a term in jail"].) Thus, courts have found PRCS inapplicable for defendants who had a felony sentence reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposit 2018Indeed, following many Proposition 47 resentencings, a defendant will not be subject to PRCS because "PRCS applies only to felony convictions. (§§ 3450, subd. (b)(5), 3451, subd. (a).) There is no PRCS for misdemeanors." ( People v. Elizalde (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1062 , 1065, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 ; accord, People v. Pinon (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 956 , 965, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 ( Pinon ) ["misdemeanor offenders do not serve parole or PRCS after completing a term in jail"].) Thus, courts have found PRCS inapplicable for defendants who had a felony sentence reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposit | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. City of Petalumagreen2 sentences2016(See Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1074 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] (Bowman)) Thus, as both Save Our Neighborhood and Mani Brothers explained, ‘“The purpose behind the requirement of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration is to explore environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document. . . . 2016(See Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1074 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 413 ] (Bowman)) Thus, as both Save Our Neighborhood and Mani Brothers explained, ‘“The purpose behind the requirement of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration is to explore environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document. . . . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Panizzongreen2 sentences2003(People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658, 667 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 , 951 P.2d 1191 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) In doing so, this court ignored the broad language of the statute and forgot the purpose of the requirement—“ ‘to promote judicial economy “by screening out wholly frivolous guilty [and nolo contendere] plea appeals before time and money is spent preparing the record and the briefs for consideration by the reviewing court.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 668, quoting People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75-76 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 913 P.2d 1061 ].) Five years ago, I warned my colleagues that our 2003(People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658, 667 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 , 951 P.2d 1191 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) In doing so, this court ignored the broad language of the statute and forgot the purpose of the requirement—“ ‘to promote judicial economy “by screening out wholly frivolous guilty [and nolo contendere] plea appeals before time and money is spent preparing the record and the briefs for consideration by the reviewing court.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 668, quoting People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75-76 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 913 P.2d 1061 ].) Five years ago, I warned my colleagues that our | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lloydgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McBoyle v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Overstreetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Tignergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wattsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| North Carolina v. Alfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Alvagreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of San Francisco v. Lawtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cassin v. Nicholsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Dakota S.
green
2 sentences2015(In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 .) Mother, represented by counsel, participated in the April 2, 2014 hearing. 2014(In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 .) Notwithstanding the foregoing, an appellate court does have the right to excuse a forfeiture in appropriate circumstances. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
In Re SJ
green
2 sentences2015(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 .) The purpose behind this rule is “to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962.) The rule applies in dependency matters. 2014(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 .) The purpose behind this rule is “to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962.) The forfeiture rule applies in dependency matters. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
People v. Saunders
green
2 sentences2015(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 .) The purpose behind this rule is “to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962.) The rule applies in dependency matters. 2014(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 .) The purpose behind this rule is “to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962.) The forfeiture rule applies in dependency matters. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
In Re SB
red
2 sentences2015(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 .) The purpose behind this rule is “to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962.) The rule applies in dependency matters. 2014(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 .) The purpose behind this rule is “to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962.) The forfeiture rule applies in dependency matters. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District
green
2 sentences2021It instead refers to substantial evidence that the proposed modifications will involve ‘[s]ubstantial changes’ that ‘require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement’ of new or significantly more severe environmental effects.” (San Mateo Gardens, at p. 957, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162, subd. (a).) Our high court further noted the limitations in section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 concerning the limited circumstances under which subsequent review must be prepared “are designed to balance CEQA’s central purpose of promoting 20 c 2021It instead refers to substantial evidence that the proposed modifications will involve ‘[s]ubstantial changes’ that ‘require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement’ of new or significantly more severe environmental effects.” (San Mateo Gardens, at p. 957, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162, subd. (a).) Our high court further noted the limitations in section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 concerning the limited circumstances under which subsequent review must be prepared “are designed to balance CEQA’s central purpose of promoting 20 c | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Cory v. City of Huntington Beach
green
2 sentences2004(See Radar, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 249 ; Cory, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 136 ; Petersen, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at pp. 770-771; Taylor, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d at pp. 262-263.) Likewise, in those cases where the plaintiffs prematurely filed a complaint against a public entity before obtaining leave to present a late claim but failed to timely amend that complaint after obtaining leave, the courts refused to dismiss the action because the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the claim presentation requirement. 2004(See Radar, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 249 ; Cory, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 136 ; Petersen, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at pp. 770-771; Taylor, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d at pp. 262-263.) Likewise, in those cases where the plaintiffs prematurely filed a complaint against a public entity before obtaining leave to present a late claim but failed to timely amend that complaint after obtaining leave, the courts refused to dismiss the action because the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the claim presentation requirement. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Radar v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2004(See Radar, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 249 ; Cory, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 136 ; Petersen, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at pp. 770-771; Taylor, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d at pp. 262-263.) Likewise, in those cases where the plaintiffs prematurely filed a complaint against a public entity before obtaining leave to present a late claim but failed to timely amend that complaint after obtaining leave, the courts refused to dismiss the action because the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the claim presentation requirement. 2004(See Radar, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 249 ; Cory, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 136 ; Petersen, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at pp. 770-771; Taylor, supra, 180 Cal.App.2d at pp. 262-263.) Likewise, in those cases where the plaintiffs prematurely filed a complaint against a public entity before obtaining leave to present a late claim but failed to timely amend that complaint after obtaining leave, the courts refused to dismiss the action because the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the claim presentation requirement. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Fretwell
green
2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca | 2 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Orin
green
2 sentences1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People’s interests as well as to the defendant’s. [Citations.]” (People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, “[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People . . . thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge,. . . a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case.” (People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126 [ 84 Ca 1986On the other hand, the furtherance of justice requires that justice be done to the People's interests as well as to the defendant's. [Citations.]" ( People v. Borousk (1972) 24 Cal. App.3d 147, 163 [ 100 Cal. Rptr. 867 ].) Additionally, "[i]n the light of the importance to the administration of criminal justice of not having a case brought by the People ... thrown out of court except for a reason which can be said to be that which would motivate a reasonable judge, ... a judge does not have absolute discretion to dismiss a criminal case." ( People v. Curtiss (1970) 4 Page Supp. 21 Cal. App.3d | 2 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Manzy W.
green
1 sentence2022Section 702 provides that when a minor “is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.” To effectuate compliance with this rule, California Rules of Court, rule 5.975(a) requires that “[i]f any offense may be found to be either a felony or a misdemeanor, the court must consider which description applies and expressly declare on the record that it has made such consideration and must state its determination as to whether the offense is a misdeme | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Espinoza
green
2 sentences2021Courts have noted that the statute imposing PRCS⸺section 3451⸺makes no mention of the application of excess custody credits and provides defendants covered by its provisions shall “be subject to” PRCS “[n]otwithstanding any other law.” (See, e.g., People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, 639 , italics omitted (Espinoza); People v. Superior Court (Rangel) (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 410 (Rangel).) In Espinoza, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 , a Proposition 36 resentencing case, the Court of Appeal held that excess custody credits do not reduce the PRCS supervision 6 period. 2021Courts have noted that the statute imposing PRCS⸺section 3451⸺makes no mention of the application of excess custody credits and provides defendants covered by its provisions shall “be subject to” PRCS “[n]otwithstanding any other law.” (See, e.g., People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, 639 , italics omitted (Espinoza); People v. Superior Court (Rangel) (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 410 (Rangel).) In Espinoza, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 , a Proposition 36 resentencing case, the Court of Appeal held that excess custody credits do not reduce the PRCS supervision 6 period. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Superior Court of Riverside County
green
1 sentence2021Courts have noted that the statute imposing PRCS⸺section 3451⸺makes no mention of the application of excess custody credits and provides defendants covered by its provisions shall “be subject to” PRCS “[n]otwithstanding any other law.” (See, e.g., People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, 639 , italics omitted (Espinoza); People v. Superior Court (Rangel) (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 410 (Rangel).) In Espinoza, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 , a Proposition 36 resentencing case, the Court of Appeal held that excess custody credits do not reduce the PRCS supervision 6 period. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Phillips v. Desert Hospital District
green
1 sentence2020Finally, the County’s attempt to avoid application of the waiver rule by arguing it is not responsible for reviewing the documents Roger submitted with his claim contravenes the purpose behind the waiver rule, which is to encourage public entities to “investigate claims promptly, . . . and notify claimants of their determinations, thus 20 enabling the claimants to perfect their claims.” (Phillips, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 706 .) Simply put, the County cannot have it both ways. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Section 425.11 controls actions “to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death.” (Id., subd. (b).) In such actions, “the amount demanded shall not be stated” in a complaint.2 (§ 425.10, subd. (b).) Instead, the plaintiff must serve on the defendant “a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought.” (§ 425.11, subd. (b).) As is relevant here, the plaintiff must serve such a statement of damages “before a default may be taken.” (Id., subd. (c).) Similarly, section 425.115 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to serve upon the defendant a form statement | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Wilkerson green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Wong v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. McGraw green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| City of Los Angeles v. Aalbers green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Gordon green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.