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.
22 California opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2025 6 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. Seijasgreen2 sentences2014(People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 [concluding that “independent review” applies because “the ruling we are reviewing affects the constitutional right of confrontation”].) Accordingly, we apply the de novo standard of review to defendant’s claim that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confrontation. 2013(People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 [concluding that “independent review” applies because “the ruling we are reviewing affects the constitutional right of confrontation”].) Accordingly, we apply the de novo standard of review to appellant’s claim that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confrontation. 15 D. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Bunyardgreen2 sentences2024(See People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) “‘“‘Confrontation clause violations are subject to federal harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [Chapman].’ [Citation.] We ask whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.’”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 395 ; see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 438 [“[W]e evaluate federal constitutional error for harmlessness under the Chapman beyo 2015(People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) If the statement is determined to be nontestimonial, and offered as a statement against interest, we apply the independent standard of review to the trial court’s preliminary determination whether the statements “bore sufficiently particularized guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible.” (People v. Tran (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1218 ; accord, People v. Arceo, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) We review the trial court’s determination that the statement is against a declaran | 2 | 3 |
Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc.green2 sentences2014(Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009 .) We review legal issues under a de novo or independent standard. 2012(Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009 [ 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 ].) “We review legal issues . . . under a de novo or independent standard.” (Ibid.) “When no extrinsic evidence is introduced, or when the competent extrinsic evidence is not in conflict, the appellate court independently construes the contract.” (Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 944, 955 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 505 ].) II. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Cagegreen2 sentences2024(Id. at p. 53, fn. 4 [noting a witness’s “recorded statement, knowingly given in responses to structured police questioning, qualifies under any conceivable definition” of interrogation]; accord, People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965, 978 .) If a statement is determined to be testimonial, we apply the de novo or independent standard of review to claims that implicate a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation. 2015Standard of Review “On appeal, we independently review whether a statement was testimonial so as to implicate the constitutional right of confrontation. [Citation.] We evaluate the primary purpose for which the statement was given and taken under an objective standard, ‘considering all the circumstances that might reasonably bear on the intent of the participants in the conversation.’” (People v. Nelson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1466 , 13 quoting from People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965, 984 ; accord, People v. Ford (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 987, 995 .) If the statement is determined to be te | 1 | 2 |
People v. Perezgreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) “‘“‘Confrontation clause violations are subject to federal harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [Chapman].’ [Citation.] We ask whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.’”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 395 ; see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 438 [“[W]e evaluate federal constitutional error for harmlessness under the Chapman beyo | 1 | 1 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Doris F.green1 sentence2024Determining the applicable legal standard is a legal issue we review “ ‘ “under a de novo or independent standard.” ’ ” (Orange County Water Dist. v. MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 229, 240 .) Section 388, subdivision (a)(1) permits an interested party to, “upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court . . . to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” In addition to a change of circumstance or new evidence, the moving party must establish “the proposed change is in the best | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence2024(See People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) “‘“‘Confrontation clause violations are subject to federal harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [Chapman].’ [Citation.] We ask whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.’”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 395 ; see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 438 [“[W]e evaluate federal constitutional error for harmlessness under the Chapman beyo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) “‘“‘Confrontation clause violations are subject to federal harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [Chapman].’ [Citation.] We ask whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.’”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 395 ; see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 438 [“[W]e evaluate federal constitutional error for harmlessness under the Chapman beyo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheelergreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) “‘“‘Confrontation clause violations are subject to federal harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [Chapman].’ [Citation.] We ask whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.’”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 395 ; see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 438 [“[W]e evaluate federal constitutional error for harmlessness under the Chapman beyo | 1 | 1 |
Fresno County Department of Social Services v. Monica G.green1 sentence2024Determining the applicable legal standard is a legal issue we review “ ‘ “under a de novo or independent standard.” ’ ” (Orange County Water Dist. v. MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 229, 240 .) Section 388, subdivision (a)(1) permits an interested party to, “upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court . . . to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” In addition to a change of circumstance or new evidence, the moving party must establish “the proposed change is in the best | 1 | 1 |
Newhall County Water District v. Castaic Lake Water Agencygreen1 sentence2022(E.g., Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 982 , 989- 990 [Proposition 218 and 26 violations “are subject to a de novo or independent standard of review”]; San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1152 [“‘We review de novo the question whether the challenged rates comply with [Proposition 26] constitutional requirements’”]; Newhall County Water Dist. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1440 (Newhall) [same].) The District cites no persuasive authority suggesting an alternative standar | 1 | 1 |
San Diego Cnty. Water Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. Cal.green1 sentence2022(E.g., Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 982 , 989- 990 [Proposition 218 and 26 violations “are subject to a de novo or independent standard of review”]; San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1152 [“‘We review de novo the question whether the challenged rates comply with [Proposition 26] constitutional requirements’”]; Newhall County Water Dist. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1440 (Newhall) [same].) The District cites no persuasive authority suggesting an alternative standar | 1 | 1 |
Do v. The Regents of the University of California CA4/1green1 sentence2020(Do v. Regents of University of California (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1492 (Do).) We review legal issues under a de novo or independent standard. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Arceogreen1 sentence2015(People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) If the statement is determined to be nontestimonial, and offered as a statement against interest, we apply the independent standard of review to the trial court’s preliminary determination whether the statements “bore sufficiently particularized guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible.” (People v. Tran (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1218 ; accord, People v. Arceo, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) We review the trial court’s determination that the statement is against a declaran | 1 | 1 |
| The People v. Trangreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fordgreen1 sentence2015Standard of Review “On appeal, we independently review whether a statement was testimonial so as to implicate the constitutional right of confrontation. [Citation.] We evaluate the primary purpose for which the statement was given and taken under an objective standard, ‘considering all the circumstances that might reasonably bear on the intent of the participants in the conversation.’” (People v. Nelson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1466 , 13 quoting from People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965, 984 ; accord, People v. Ford (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 987, 995 .) If the statement is determined to be te | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lazlogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fuiavagreen | 1 | 1 |
| SFPP, L.P. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sweeney
green
2 sentences2025Lockyer v. Sun Pacific Farming Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 619, 640 .) However, “[t]he California Supreme Court has held that appellate courts should generally apply the de novo or independent standard of review to claims that implicate a defendant’s constitutional right to 38 confrontation.” (People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 .) B. 2024(See People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) “‘“‘Confrontation clause violations are subject to federal harmless-error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [Chapman].’ [Citation.] We ask whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.’”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 395 ; see People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 438 [“[W]e evaluate federal constitutional error for harmlessness under the Chapman beyo | 3 | 2015–2025 |
Fink v. Shemtov
green
2 sentences2017For example, on a motion for judgment, the trial court 10 may disbelieve the plaintiff's evidence, draw adverse (rather than favorable) inferences therefrom, and credit contrary evidence introduced through cross-examination or otherwise. " 'The standard of review after a trial court issues judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is the same as if the court had rendered judgment after a completed trial—that is, in reviewing the questions of fact decided by the trial court, the substantial evidence rule applies." (Medrazo, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 10 .) " 'But, we are not 2014A. Applicable Standards of Review “We review the trial court’s express factual findings in the statement of decision, and any implied findings, for substantial evidence. [Citation.] ‘We review legal issues . . . under a de novo or independent standard.’ [Citation.]” (Fink v. Shemtov (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 599, 608 .) “‘The determination of employee or independent-contractor status is one of fact if dependent upon the resolution of disputed evidence or inferences’” as is the circumstance in this case. | 3 | 2014–2017 |
Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. MAG Aerospace Indus., Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Determining the applicable legal standard is a legal issue we review “ ‘ “under a de novo or independent standard.” ’ ” (Orange County Water Dist. v. MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 229, 240 .) Section 388, subdivision (a)(1) permits an interested party to, “upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court . . . to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” In addition to a change of circumstance or new evidence, the moving party must establish “the proposed change is in the best 2023Standard of Review The standard of review for a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is “ ‘ “the same as if the court had rendered judgment after a completed trial—that is, in reviewing the questions of fact decided by the trial court, the substantial evidence rule applies.” ’ ” (MAG Aerospace, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 239 .) “ ‘ “We review legal issues . . . under a de novo or independent standard.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 239–240.) In applying substantial evidence review, the “power of the reviewing court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the whole record, t | 2 | 2023–2024 |
People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Sun Pacific Farming Co.
green
1 sentence2025Lockyer v. Sun Pacific Farming Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 619, 640 .) However, “[t]he California Supreme Court has held that appellate courts should generally apply the de novo or independent standard of review to claims that implicate a defendant’s constitutional right to 38 confrontation.” (People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 .) B. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Posey
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) The trial court denied a defense request that the jury be instructed on the uncharged offenses of gross vehicular manslaughter with and without intoxication. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District
green
1 sentence2022The term “rational basis” does not appear in United Water, as the District suggests, and the only mention of “reasonable basis” appears in a brief reference to Professional Scientists’ decision “upholding higher fees for filing certain environmental review documents as having ‘sufficient reasonable basis.’” (United Water, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1214 .) Not only did Professional Scientists involve only Proposition 13, but it also applied independent review, recognizing “the fundamental principle that ‘whether impositions are “taxes” or “fees” is a question of law for the appellate courts to dec | 1 | 2022–2022 |
California Ass'n of Professional Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game
green
1 sentence2022The term “rational basis” does not appear in United Water, as the District suggests, and the only mention of “reasonable basis” appears in a brief reference to Professional Scientists’ decision “upholding higher fees for filing certain environmental review documents as having ‘sufficient reasonable basis.’” (United Water, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 1214 .) Not only did Professional Scientists involve only Proposition 13, but it also applied independent review, recognizing “the fundamental principle that ‘whether impositions are “taxes” or “fees” is a question of law for the appellate courts to dec | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz
green
1 sentence2022(E.g., Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 982 , 989- 990 [Proposition 218 and 26 violations “are subject to a de novo or independent standard of review”]; San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1152 [“‘We review de novo the question whether the challenged rates comply with [Proposition 26] constitutional requirements’”]; Newhall County Water Dist. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1440 (Newhall) [same].) The District cites no persuasive authority suggesting an alternative standar | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jaramillo v. State Board for Geologists & Geophysicists
green
1 sentence2020(Jaramillo v. State Bd. For Geologists & Geophysicists (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 880 , 888–889.) Moreover, “the petitioner in an administrative mandamus proceeding has the burden of proving that the agency’s decision was invalid and should be set aside, because it is presumed that the agency regularly performed its official duty.” (Desmond, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 335 .) Of course, as to any questions of law raised on appeal, we apply a de novo or independent standard of review to such questions. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Desmond v. County of Contra Costa
green
1 sentence2020(Jaramillo v. State Bd. For Geologists & Geophysicists (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 880 , 888–889.) Moreover, “the petitioner in an administrative mandamus proceeding has the burden of proving that the agency’s decision was invalid and should be set aside, because it is presumed that the agency regularly performed its official duty.” (Desmond, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 335 .) Of course, as to any questions of law raised on appeal, we apply a de novo or independent standard of review to such questions. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Molina v. Board of Administration
green
1 sentence2020(Molina v. Board of Administration, etc., supra, 200 Cal.App.4th 53, 61 .) Here, as explained hereinbelow, substantial evidence supported the factual determinations of the trial court and the administrative hearing officer, and furthermore, our independent review of any legal issues raised herein clearly supports the county’s action and decision in this matter.3 II. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kinney v. Overton
green
1 sentence2017For example, on a motion for judgment, the trial court 10 may disbelieve the plaintiff's evidence, draw adverse (rather than favorable) inferences therefrom, and credit contrary evidence introduced through cross-examination or otherwise. " 'The standard of review after a trial court issues judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is the same as if the court had rendered judgment after a completed trial—that is, in reviewing the questions of fact decided by the trial court, the substantial evidence rule applies." (Medrazo, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 10 .) " 'But, we are not | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood
green
1 sentence2017For example, on a motion for judgment, the trial court 10 may disbelieve the plaintiff's evidence, draw adverse (rather than favorable) inferences therefrom, and credit contrary evidence introduced through cross-examination or otherwise. " 'The standard of review after a trial court issues judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is the same as if the court had rendered judgment after a completed trial—that is, in reviewing the questions of fact decided by the trial court, the substantial evidence rule applies." (Medrazo, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 10 .) " 'But, we are not | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
green
1 sentence2016(See Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 384 .) However, William’s arguments challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Sweeney (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 210, 221 ; see also People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 850 .) If the statement is determined to be nontestimonial, and offered as a statement against interest, we apply the independent standard of review to the trial court’s preliminary determination whether the statements “bore sufficiently particularized guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible.” (People v. Tran (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1218 ; accord, People v. Arceo, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) We review the trial court’s determination that the statement is against a declaran | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Nelson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Cromer green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.