27 California opinions name it 3 courts 1915–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Bogartgreen2 sentences1990We have held that “[u]nder sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code, disbarments, and not suspensions, have been the rule rather than the exception in cases of serious crimes involving moral turpitude . . . .” (In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ].) We have frequently disbarred attorneys upon such convictions. 1990We have held that “[u]nder sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code, disbarments, and not suspensions, have been the rule rather than the exception in cases of serious crimes involving moral turpitude . . . .” (In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ].) We have frequently disbarred attorneys upon such convictions. | 4 | 4 |
In Re Smithgreen2 sentences1989“Under sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code, disbarments, and not suspensions, have been the rule rather than the exception in cases of serious crimes involving moral turpitude, the purpose of the statute being to protect the public, as well as the courts and the legal profession.” (In re Bogart, supra, 9 Cal.3d 743, 748; In re Smith (1967) 67 Cal.2d 460, 462 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 615 , 432 P.2d 231 ].) Section 6102, subdivision (d) requires a finding of moral turpitude. 1989“Under sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code, disbarments, and not suspensions, have been the rule rather than the exception in cases of serious crimes involving moral turpitude, the purpose of the statute being to protect the public, as well as the courts and the legal profession.” (In re Bogart, supra, 9 Cal.3d 743, 748; In re Smith (1967) 67 Cal.2d 460, 462 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 615 , 432 P.2d 231 ].) Section 6102, subdivision (d) requires a finding of moral turpitude. | 2 | 3 |
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Uplandgreen2 sentences2020(California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 945 [noting “strong presumption” against “implied repeal”].) Until now, a plaintiff seeking greater than compensatory damages had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant was “guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. 2020(California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 945 [noting “strong presumption” against “implied repeal”].) Until now, a plaintiff seeking greater than compensatory damages had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant was “guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. | 2 | 2 |
Lacagnina v. Comprehend Sys., Inc.green2 sentences2020(Accord, Lacagnina, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 972 [“If every plaintiff in an employment or contract dispute could also seek treble damages” under Penal Code section 496, “such claims would become the rule rather than the exception”].) Second, reading Penal Code section 496 to apply in theft- related tort cases would effectively repeal the punitive damages statutes. 2020(Accord, Lacagnina, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 972 [“If every plaintiff in an employment or contract dispute could also seek treble damages” under Penal Code section 496, “such claims would become the rule rather than the exception”].) Second, reading Penal Code section 496 to apply in theft- related tort cases would effectively repeal the punitive damages statutes. | 2 | 2 |
Schmid v. Lovettegreen2 sentences1987(See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises (1968) 390 U.S. 400, 401-402, fn. 4 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1263, 1266 , 88 S.Ct. 964 ] [attorney fees award under Title II of Civil Rights Act not limited to cases where defenses were for delay and not in good faith].) One reason Teitelbaum presents in support of its conclusion is that treating good faith as a special circumstance defeats the policy underlying attorney's fees awards, which are not designed to penalize defendants, but to encourage injured individuals to seek judicial relief. ( Teitelbaum v. Sorenson, supra, 648 F.2d 1248 at p. 1251 .) Teitelbau 1987(See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises (1968) 390 U.S. 400, 401-402, fn. 4 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1263, 1266 , 88 S.Ct. 964 ] [attorney fees award under Title II of Civil Rights Act not limited to cases where defenses were for delay and not in good faith].) One reason Teitelbaum presents in support of its conclusion is that treating good faith as a special circumstance defeats the policy underlying attorney's fees awards, which are not designed to penalize defendants, but to encourage injured individuals to seek judicial relief. ( Teitelbaum v. Sorenson, supra, 648 F.2d 1248 at p. 1251 .) Teitelbau | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVgreen2 sentences2018(See Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 , 1165, 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ["When uncertainty arises in a question of statutory interpretation, consideration must be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation"].) If every plaintiff in an employment or contract dispute could also seek treble damages and attorneys' fees on the ground that the defendant received "stolen property," such claims would become the rule rather than the exception, parties would more frequently assert claims for "theft" in run-of-the-mill commercial disputes, 2018(See Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 , 1165, 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ["When uncertainty arises in a question of statutory interpretation, consideration must be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation"].) If every plaintiff in an employment or contract dispute could also seek treble damages and attorneys' fees on the ground that the defendant received "stolen property," such claims would become the rule rather than the exception, parties would more frequently assert claims for "theft" in run-of-the-mill commercial disputes, | 1 | 2 |
Rabbi Samuel Teitelbaum, Larry and Louise Diehl v. Theodore Sorenson, Dba/waitwell Nursing Homegreen2 sentences2003To act as an effective incentive for injured parties to seek judicial relief for civil rights violations, ‘fee awards should be the rule rather than the exception.’ ” (Ackerley Communications v. City of Salem, OR (9th Cir. 1985) 752 F.2d 1394 , 1396, quoting Teitelbaum v. Sorenson (9th Cir. 1981) 648 F.2d 1248, 1251 (Teitelbaum).) An abuse of discretion exists where the trial court either misperceives the law or does not consider relevant factors and therefore misapplies the law. 1987(Teitelbaum v. Sorenson, supra, 648 F.2d 1248 at p. 1251 .) Teitelbaum notes that to act as an effective incentive, fee awards should be the rule rather than the exception, and denying fees where a defendant acts in good faith will defeat this aim since most defendants will be able to demonstrate at least colorable good faith. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Schwartzgreen2 sentences1989(In re Gross, supra, 33 Cal.3d 561, 568 ; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395, 399 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ].) Additionally, we note that petitioner’s crime of forgery is a serious one involving moral turpitude (In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748-749 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ]; In re Hallinan (1954) 43 Cal.2d 243, 247-248 [ 272 P.2d 768 ]) and that disbarment is the rule rather than the exception following conviction for such crimes (In re Silverton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 517, 523 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 535 P.2d 724 ]; Bogart, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 748 ). 1989(In re Gross, supra, 33 Cal.3d 561, 568 ; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395, 399 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ].) Additionally, we note that petitioner’s crime of forgery is a serious one involving moral turpitude (In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748-749 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ]; In re Hallinan (1954) 43 Cal.2d 243, 247-248 [ 272 P.2d 768 ]) and that disbarment is the rule rather than the exception following conviction for such crimes (In re Silverton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 517, 523 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 535 P.2d 724 ]; Bogart, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 748 ). | 1 | 2 |
State of California v. Hansengreen1 sentence2015In a memorandum of law submitted to the trial court, appellants argued that the court might award monetary damages under the declaratory relief allegation to either side, 'regardless of whether pleaded or not, if the damages are part of the declaration of rights.' "]; State of California v. Hansen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 604, 612 ["Damages may be awarded in a contested case even though not prayed for in the complaint."]; cf. Johnson v. Wunner (1919) 40 Cal.App. 484, 486 [because plaintiff's entire theory was for specific performance and did not allege facts showing entitlement to damages, plaint | 1 | 1 |
MacMorris Sales Corp. v. Kozakgreen1 sentence2015The tripartite relief sought in this case [i.e., injunction, declaratory judgment, and restitution of public money] would thus seem to be the rule rather than the exception." 15 when an answer is filed, the case becomes one in which the court is authorized regardless of the prayer to grant any relief consistent with the plaintiff's averments." (See also Macmorris Sales Corp. v. Kozak (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 430, 439 ["An award of damages . . . under a cause of action for declaratory [relief] would not be erroneous if there were proper evidence and findings to support the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Wunnergreen1 sentence2015In a memorandum of law submitted to the trial court, appellants argued that the court might award monetary damages under the declaratory relief allegation to either side, 'regardless of whether pleaded or not, if the damages are part of the declaration of rights.' "]; State of California v. Hansen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 604, 612 ["Damages may be awarded in a contested case even though not prayed for in the complaint."]; cf. Johnson v. Wunner (1919) 40 Cal.App. 484, 486 [because plaintiff's entire theory was for specific performance and did not allege facts showing entitlement to damages, plaint | 1 | 1 |
Kees v. Medical Boardgreen2 sentences2013Although repetitive examinations may become unduly burdensome in any case, they “are permissible if there is a showing of good cause.” (Kees v. Medical Board (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1801, 1814 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 ].) An SVPA case requires a current mental condition, and when resolution of the case spans several years, multiple examinations are likely to be the rule rather than the exception. 2013Although repetitive examinations may become unduly burdensome in any case, they “are permissible if there is a showing of good cause.” (Kees v. Medical Board (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1801, 1814 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 ].) An SVPA case requires a current mental condition, and when resolution of the case spans several years, multiple examinations are likely to be the rule rather than the exception. | 1 | 1 |
Dunbar v. ALBERTSON'S, INC.green2 sentences2011The trial court could, without abusing its discretion, conclude the requisite predominance was missing where there was insufficient evidence misclassification was the rule rather than the exception.” [Citation omitted.]) and Division One of the First District in Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1431 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ] (“[T]he presence of individual liability issues was only one factor, not the controlling factor, in the court’s decision [(denying certification)]. 2011The trial court could, without abusing its discretion, conclude the requisite predominance was missing where there was insufficient evidence misclassification was the rule rather than the exception.” [Citation omitted.]) and Division One of the First District in Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1431 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ] (“[T]he presence of individual liability issues was only one factor, not the controlling factor, in the court’s decision [(denying certification)]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simongreen1 sentence2006(People v. Coria, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 874 .) Our decision relied on our holding in Simon, supra, 9 Cal.4th at page 519, that mens rea is the rule rather than the exception, particularly for crimes with severe penalties. | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Hallinangreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Silvertongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hutchinson v. Proxmiregreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Allengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of Education of the Round Valley Unified School District v. Round Valley Teachers Ass'n
green
2 sentences2017Notwithstanding the Limited Judicial Review Normally Afforded Arbitration Awards, an Award Must Be Vacated If It Violates a Party's Statutory Rights or Clearly Defined Public Policy One of the ways an arbitrator exceeds his or her powers is by issuing an award "that violates a party's unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy." ( Richey , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 916 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 , 341 P.3d 438 .) Thus, although our Supreme Court has noted that arbitral "finality is the rule rather than the exception" ( *598 Round Valley , supr 2017Notwithstanding the Limited Judicial Review Normally Afforded Arbitration Awards, an Award Must Be Vacated If It Violates a Party's Statutory Rights or Clearly Defined Public Policy One of the ways an arbitrator exceeds his or her powers is by issuing an award "that violates a party's unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy." ( Richey , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 916 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 , 341 P.3d 438 .) Thus, although our Supreme Court has noted that arbitral "finality is the rule rather than the exception" ( *598 Round Valley , supr | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Richey v. Autonation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Notwithstanding the Limited Judicial Review Normally Afforded Arbitration Awards, an Award Must Be Vacated If It Violates a Party's Statutory Rights or Clearly Defined Public Policy One of the ways an arbitrator exceeds his or her powers is by issuing an award "that violates a party's unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy." ( Richey , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 916 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 , 341 P.3d 438 .) Thus, although our Supreme Court has noted that arbitral "finality is the rule rather than the exception" ( *598 Round Valley , supr 2017Notwithstanding the Limited Judicial Review Normally Afforded Arbitration Awards, an Award Must Be Vacated If It Violates a Party's Statutory Rights or Clearly Defined Public Policy One of the ways an arbitrator exceeds his or her powers is by issuing an award "that violates a party's unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy." ( Richey , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 916 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 , 341 P.3d 438 .) Thus, although our Supreme Court has noted that arbitral "finality is the rule rather than the exception" ( *598 Round Valley , supr | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Ford
green
2 sentences1990(See In re Basinger, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1348 ; In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ]; see also In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ].) The crimes of which petitioner was convicted (three counts of grand theft and three counts of forgery) are serious crimes and warrant disbarment. 1990(See In re Basinger, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1348 ; In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ]; see also In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ].) The crimes of which petitioner was convicted (three counts of grand theft and three counts of forgery) are serious crimes and warrant disbarment. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company
green
1 sentence2026(See Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 37 ; Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 329–330.) They are theories recognized as being “amenable to class treatment.” (Sav-On, at p. 329.) It is settled that exemptions are affirmative defenses, “and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee’s exemption.” ( Ramirez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 794–795.) Class treatment is proper if exemption defenses can be litigated without excessive individual inquiries into the class members’ responsibilities and apportionment of their time. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2026A plaintiff bringing a class action normally has the ultimate burden of proving class-wide liability at trial. [Citation.] Because Plaintiff has brought a class action challenging UPS’s exemption [determinations] as a policy of misclassification, Plaintiff must be ‘able to demonstrate pursuant to either scenario that misclassification was the rule rather than the exception .…’ [quoting Sav-On], supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 330 .… Where, as here, Plaintiff has sought the benefit of class treatment, he too must accept its burden. 2026The Sav-On opinion includes the following language about the underlying certification ruling: “A reasonable court, even allowing for individualized damage determinations, could conclude that, to the extent plaintiffs are able to demonstrate pursuant to either scenario that misclassification was the rule rather than the exception, a class action would be the most efficient means of resolving class members’ overtime claims.” (Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 330 , italics added.) The Duran opinion contains remarks contemplating the production by class plaintiffs of “common proof [that] would be s | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.
green
2 sentences2026(See Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 37 ; Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 329–330.) They are theories recognized as being “amenable to class treatment.” (Sav-On, at p. 329.) It is settled that exemptions are affirmative defenses, “and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee’s exemption.” ( Ramirez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 794–795.) Class treatment is proper if exemption defenses can be litigated without excessive individual inquiries into the class members’ responsibilities and apportionment of their time. 2026The Sav-On opinion includes the following language about the underlying certification ruling: “A reasonable court, even allowing for individualized damage determinations, could conclude that, to the extent plaintiffs are able to demonstrate pursuant to either scenario that misclassification was the rule rather than the exception, a class action would be the most efficient means of resolving class members’ overtime claims.” (Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 330 , italics added.) The Duran opinion contains remarks contemplating the production by class plaintiffs of “common proof [that] would be s | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Switzer v. Wood
green
1 sentence2022Switzer v. Wood — Finding Section 496(c) Applies to Claims of Fraud and Breach of Contract in the Joint Venture / Limited Liability Corporation Context In Switzer v. Wood (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 116 (Switzer), the third and most recent Court of Appeal decision prior to the one under review, the appellate court found section 496(c) applicable in the setting we face in the present litigation — an equity income sharing dispute between joint venture / limited liability business partners. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mora v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at pp. 734-735.) Similarly, in Mora v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 496 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 535 ], the court concluded the trial court did not use improper criteria in denying class certification, in that it did not improperly evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. 2015(Id. at pp. 734-735.) Similarly, in Mora v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 496 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 535 ], the court concluded the trial court did not use improper criteria in denying class certification, in that it did not improperly evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in finding Mario v. United Parcel Service, Inc., supra, 251 F.R.D. 476 was analogous. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Rubalcava
green
2 sentences2006(People v. Coria, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 876-878.) People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735 , 1 P.3d 52 ], said that because the crime of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. 2006(People v. Coria, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 876-878.) People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735 , 1 P.3d 52 ], said that because the crime of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Coria
green
1 sentence2006(People v. Coria, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 874 .) Our decision relied on our holding in Simon, supra, 9 Cal.4th at page 519, that mens rea is the rule rather than the exception, particularly for crimes with severe penalties. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
cluster 446841
green
1 sentence2003To act as an effective incentive for injured parties to seek judicial relief for civil rights violations, ‘fee awards should be the rule rather than the exception.’ ” (Ackerley Communications v. City of Salem, OR (9th Cir. 1985) 752 F.2d 1394 , 1396, quoting Teitelbaum v. Sorenson (9th Cir. 1981) 648 F.2d 1248, 1251 (Teitelbaum).) An abuse of discretion exists where the trial court either misperceives the law or does not consider relevant factors and therefore misapplies the law. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Severo
green
1 sentence1990(See, e.g., In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ] [embezzlement]; In re Severo, supra, 41 Cal.3d 493 [bribery; theft of federal funds]; In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 689 P.2d 115 ] [possession of marijuana for sale]; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ] [use of U.S. Postal Service to defraud]; In re Calway (1977) 20 Cal.3d 165 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 570 P.2d 1223 ] [conspiracy to commit illegal gambling]; In re Bloom (1977) 19 Cal.3d 175 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 561 P.2d 258 ] [solici | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Basinger
green
1 sentence1990(See In re Basinger, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1348 ; In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ]; see also In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 511 P.2d 1167 ].) The crimes of which petitioner was convicted (three counts of grand theft and three counts of forgery) are serious crimes and warrant disbarment. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| In Re Calaway green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Weber
green
2 sentences1990(See, e.g., In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ] [embezzlement]; In re Severo, supra, 41 Cal.3d 493 [bribery; theft of federal funds]; In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 689 P.2d 115 ] [possession of marijuana for sale]; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ] [use of U.S. Postal Service to defraud]; In re Calway (1977) 20 Cal.3d 165 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 570 P.2d 1223 ] [conspiracy to commit illegal gambling]; In re Bloom (1977) 19 Cal.3d 175 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 561 P.2d 258 ] [solici 1990(See, e.g., In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ] [embezzlement]; In re Severo, supra, 41 Cal.3d 493 [bribery; theft of federal funds]; In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 689 P.2d 115 ] [possession of marijuana for sale]; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ] [use of U.S. Postal Service to defraud]; In re Calway (1977) 20 Cal.3d 165 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 570 P.2d 1223 ] [conspiracy to commit illegal gambling]; In re Bloom (1977) 19 Cal.3d 175 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 561 P.2d 258 ] [solici | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Possino
green
2 sentences1990(See, e.g., In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ] [embezzlement]; In re Severo, supra, 41 Cal.3d 493 [bribery; theft of federal funds]; In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 689 P.2d 115 ] [possession of marijuana for sale]; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ] [use of U.S. Postal Service to defraud]; In re Calway (1977) 20 Cal.3d 165 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 570 P.2d 1223 ] [conspiracy to commit illegal gambling]; In re Bloom (1977) 19 Cal.3d 175 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 561 P.2d 258 ] [solici 1990(See, e.g., In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 476 , 749 P.2d 1331 ] [embezzlement]; In re Severo, supra, 41 Cal.3d 493 [bribery; theft of federal funds]; In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 689 P.2d 115 ] [possession of marijuana for sale]; In re Schwartz (1982) 31 Cal.3d 395 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 644 P.2d 833 , 26 A.L.R.4th 1077 ] [use of U.S. Postal Service to defraud]; In re Calway (1977) 20 Cal.3d 165 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 570 P.2d 1223 ] [conspiracy to commit illegal gambling]; In re Bloom (1977) 19 Cal.3d 175 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 561 P.2d 258 ] [solici | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| In Re Bloom green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| In Re Wright green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| In Re Gross green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Hartland Dean West v. Kerr-Mcgee Corporation green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| cluster 407635 green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| B. & W. Engineering Co. v. Beam green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.