defendant waives defense (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

defendant waives defense in California

22 California opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2025 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.

Followed or applied (32)

CaseFollowedCited
Mokler v. County of Orangegreen
calctapp · 2007 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2015
2 sentences

2009(See Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 133 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ] (Mokler) [“The County May Not Assert Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for the First Time on Appeal”].) In Mokler , the court noted that although “earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invalidating a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time . . . ,” more recent cases have followed Green, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at page 222 , “in concluding a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it.” (Mokler, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 135

2009(See Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 133 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ] (Mokler) [“The County May Not Assert Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for the First Time on Appeal”].) In Mokler , the court noted that although “earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invalidating a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time . . . ,” more recent cases have followed Green, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at page 222 , “in concluding a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it.” (Mokler, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 135

44
Green v. City of Oceansidegreen
calctapp · 1987 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2015
2 sentences

2015(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135 (Mokler); Green v. City of Oceanside (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 212, 239 (Green).) The rationale presented in these cases is that exhaustion is a “judicially created rule of procedure, which the courts should not allow a 18 party to use inequitably.” ( Mokler, supra, at p. 134 .) “As Green observed, ‘We think it would be grossly unfair to allow a defendant to ignore this potential procedural defense at a time when facts and memories were fresh and put a plaintiff to the time and expense of a full trial, knowing it could assert the failure

2009(See Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 133 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ] (Mokler) [“The County May Not Assert Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for the First Time on Appeal”].) In Mokler , the court noted that although “earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invalidating a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time . . . ,” more recent cases have followed Green, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at page 222 , “in concluding a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it.” (Mokler, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 135

34
People v. McClellangreen
cal · 1993 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025
2 sentences

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 203 ; People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th 367, 377 [“absent a timely objection, a defendant waives a claim of error as to a trial court’s misadvisement concerning the consequences of a guilty plea”].) People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164 (Cross) does not assist Miller.

2014(See, e.g., McClellan, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 377 [absent a timely objection, a defendant waives a claim of error as to a trial court’s misadvisement concerning the consequences of a guilty plea]; cf. People v. Zaidi, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1488-1489 [record contained evidence of prejudice and of defendant’s timely objection that he had never been advised his registration requirement was for life].) We therefore conclude that defendant is not entitled to a reversal of the judgment because of any alleged misadvisement in the 288(c) case about the sex offender registration requirement. 14

22
Mission Housing Development Co. v. City & County of San Franciscogreen
calctapp · 1997 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

22
Doster v. County of San Diegogreen
calctapp · 1988 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

22
Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermastergreen
calctapp · 1997 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

22
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of Sacramentogreen
calctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

22
Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairygreen
calctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

22
Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc.green
calctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

12
Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.green
cal · 2006 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

2009(Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 55, 67 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ]; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1215 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 ]; Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 963, 976 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ]; Wallis v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718 , 735-736 *506 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 299 ], disapproved on other grounds in Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

12
Pittman v. Carstenbrookgreen
calctapp · 1909 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1923–1939
2 sentences

1939Quoting with approval from the case of Piitman v. Carstenbrook, 11 Cal. App. 224 [ 104 Pac. 699 ], it is said in the Goss case: “ ‘It would be a very harsh rule to hold that by following the statute the defendant waives a privilege conferred by the statute. ...

1939Quoting with approval from the case of Piitman v. Carstenbrook, 11 Cal. App. 224 [ 104 Pac. 699 ], it is said in the Goss case: “ ‘It would be a very harsh rule to hold that by following the statute the defendant waives a privilege conferred by the statute. ...

12
People v. Clarkgreen
cal · 2016 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Section 859b “Section 859b provides that a criminal defendant has a right to a preliminary hearing within 10 court days of the arraignment or plea, unless the parties waive this right or the court finds good cause to continue the preliminary hearing under section 1050.” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 551 (Clark).) Under section 859b, when a defendant is in custody only on that felony complaint and the preliminary hearing is set or continued beyond the 10-court-day timeframe, “the magistrate shall dismiss the complaint” unless the defendant waives the requirement or the prosecution sho

11
People v. Simongreen
cal · 2016 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 .) “Reversal of a judgment of conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct [under state law] is called for only when, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, we can determine it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred absent the misconduct.” (People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) Medrano complains of the following remarks that the prosecutor made to the jury during closing argument: would not have erred had it refused to instruct on perfect

2019(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 .) “Reversal of a judgment of conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct [under state law] is called for only when, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, we can determine it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred absent the misconduct.” (People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) Medrano complains of the following remarks that the prosecutor made to the jury during closing argument: would not have erred had it refused to instruct on perfect

11
Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical International, Inc.green
calctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Of course, the statute of limitations remains a matter of ‘personal right for the benefit of the individual’ ... in the sense that a defendant waives that defense by not timely raising it. . . .” (Hambrecht, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1548, fn. 16 , citations omitted.) According to one treatise: “The obligor may seek special protection by incorporating provisions in an agreement that require the commencement of an action within a shorter period than that allowed by the applicable statute of limitations. . . .

11
Abelleira v. District Court of Appealgreen
cal · 1941 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009(See Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 133 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ] (Mokler) [“The County May Not Assert Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for the First Time on Appeal”].) In Mokler , the court noted that although “earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invalidating a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time . . . ,” more recent cases have followed Green, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at page 222 , “in concluding a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it.” (Mokler, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 135

2009(See Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 133 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ] (Mokler) [“The County May Not Assert Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for the First Time on Appeal”].) In Mokler , the court noted that although “earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invalidating a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time . . . ,” more recent cases have followed Green, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d at page 222 , “in concluding a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it.” (Mokler, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 135

11
Holland v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANYgreen
calctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008“Although earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invaliding a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time [citations], later cases have generally [concluded] a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it. [Citations.]” (Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ].) Thus, “[t]he exhaustion of an administrative remedy is a procedural prerequisite to an action at law, and the failure to exhaust it does not divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. *584 [Citations.]” (Hollan

2008“Although earlier cases tended to view the exhaustion doctrine as invaliding a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, thus allowing a defendant to raise it at any time [citations], later cases have generally [concluded] a defendant waives the defense by failing to timely assert it. [Citations.]” (Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 135 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ].) Thus, “[t]he exhaustion of an administrative remedy is a procedural prerequisite to an action at law, and the failure to exhaust it does not divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. *584 [Citations.]” (Hollan

11
Bleeck v. State Board of Optometrygreen
calctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Jacobs v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 1222green
calctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Ohton v. Board of Trustees of California State Universitygreen
calctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Sampsell v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1948 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Hood v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School Districtgreen
calctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
People v. Coit Ranch, Inc.green
calctapp · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
People v. McPetersred
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Estelle v. Smithgreen
scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.green
cal · 1944 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
11
Scheas v. Robertsongreen
cal · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
11
People v. Drewsgreen
calctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
11
People v. Meltongreen
calctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
11
People v. Greengreen
cal · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
11
People v. Jamesgreen
calctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
11
People v. Saddlergreen
cal · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
11
People v. Perezgreen
cal · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (25)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Dennis green
cal · 1998
2 sentences

2020(Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 674 ; People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 521-522 .) The People argue that Rios forfeited 16 Rios complains of the following remarks made by the prosecutor to the jury during her initial closing argument: “[W]hen you hear all of the evidence, when you hear and evaluate the witness, and her credibility is tested time and time again, and you get to hear all of the evidence, it is no longer an allegation.

2019(People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674 ; People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 521-522 .) Medrano acknowledges that his trial counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument.

22019–2020
People v. Centeno green
cal · 2014
2 sentences

2020(Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 674 ; People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 521-522 .) The People argue that Rios forfeited 16 Rios complains of the following remarks made by the prosecutor to the jury during her initial closing argument: “[W]hen you hear all of the evidence, when you hear and evaluate the witness, and her credibility is tested time and time again, and you get to hear all of the evidence, it is no longer an allegation.

2019(People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674 ; People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 521-522 .) Medrano acknowledges that his trial counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument.

22019–2020
People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) green
cal · 2000
1 sentence

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 203 ; People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th 367, 377 [“absent a timely objection, a defendant waives a claim of error as to a trial court’s misadvisement concerning the consequences of a guilty plea”].) People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164 (Cross) does not assist Miller.

12025–2025
People v. Cross green
cal · 2015
1 sentence

2025(See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 203 ; People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th 367, 377 [“absent a timely objection, a defendant waives a claim of error as to a trial court’s misadvisement concerning the consequences of a guilty plea”].) People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164 (Cross) does not assist Miller.

12025–2025
People v. Hill green
calctapp · 1998
1 sentence

2022(People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 .) Nevertheless, Morelos’s claim lacks merit.

12022–2022
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin green
scotus · 1991
1 sentence

2020“Section 859b governs the timing of a defendant’s preliminary hearing and establishes the statutory right, of both the People and the defendant, to a preliminary hearing at the earliest possible time.” ( Ramos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 727–728.) “Generally, section 859b has three 12 We recognize that a defendant held in custody has had the benefit of an early judicial determination of probable cause, either prior to the issuance of a warrant or following arrest pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103 and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) 500 U.S. 44 .

12020–2020
Ramos v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2020“Section 859b governs the timing of a defendant’s preliminary hearing and establishes the statutory right, of both the People and the defendant, to a preliminary hearing at the earliest possible time.” ( Ramos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 727–728.) “Generally, section 859b has three 12 We recognize that a defendant held in custody has had the benefit of an early judicial determination of probable cause, either prior to the issuance of a warrant or following arrest pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103 and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) 500 U.S. 44 .

12020–2020
Gerstein v. Pugh green
scotus · 1975
1 sentence

2020“Section 859b governs the timing of a defendant’s preliminary hearing and establishes the statutory right, of both the People and the defendant, to a preliminary hearing at the earliest possible time.” ( Ramos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 727–728.) “Generally, section 859b has three 12 We recognize that a defendant held in custody has had the benefit of an early judicial determination of probable cause, either prior to the issuance of a warrant or following arrest pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103 and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) 500 U.S. 44 .

12020–2020
People v. Arias green
cal · 1996
1 sentence

2019(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 .) “Reversal of a judgment of conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct [under state law] is called for only when, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, we can determine it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred absent the misconduct.” (People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) Medrano complains of the following remarks that the prosecutor made to the jury during closing argument: would not have erred had it refused to instruct on perfect

12019–2019
People v. Castillo green
calctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2019(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 .) “Reversal of a judgment of conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct [under state law] is called for only when, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, we can determine it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred absent the misconduct.” (People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) Medrano complains of the following remarks that the prosecutor made to the jury during closing argument: would not have erred had it refused to instruct on perfect

12019–2019
People v. Watson green
cal · 1956
1 sentence

2019(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 .) “Reversal of a judgment of conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct [under state law] is called for only when, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, we can determine it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred absent the misconduct.” (People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) Medrano complains of the following remarks that the prosecutor made to the jury during closing argument: would not have erred had it refused to instruct on perfect

12019–2019
Campbell v. Regents of University of California green
cal · 2005
1 sentence

2015(Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 321 .) Exhaustion of administrative remedies “‘is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) However, recent case law has suggested that a defendant waives the defense of exhaustion by failing to timely assert it in the trial court.

12015–2015
People v. Zaidi green
calctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2014(See, e.g., McClellan, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 377 [absent a timely objection, a defendant waives a claim of error as to a trial court’s misadvisement concerning the consequences of a guilty plea]; cf. People v. Zaidi, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1488-1489 [record contained evidence of prejudice and of defendant’s timely objection that he had never been advised his registration requirement was for life].) We therefore conclude that defendant is not entitled to a reversal of the judgment because of any alleged misadvisement in the 288(c) case about the sex offender registration requirement. 14

12014–2014
Moreno v. Sanchez green
calctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2013They are generally upheld if the shorter period is reasonable, i.e., if it gives sufficient time for the effective pursuit of the judicial remedy.” (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 469(1), p. 595, italics added.) In Moreno v. Sanchez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1415 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ] (Moreno), the purchasers of a home, the Morenos, hired an inspector, Sanchez, to inspect the home for defects before escrow closed.

2013They are generally upheld if the shorter period is reasonable, i.e., if it gives sufficient time for the effective pursuit of the judicial remedy.” (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 469(1), p. 595, italics added.) In Moreno v. Sanchez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1415 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ] (Moreno), the purchasers of a home, the Morenos, hired an inspector, Sanchez, to inspect the home for defects before escrow closed.

12013–2013
Ashland Chemical Co. v. Provence green
calctapp · 1982
11995–1995
Minton v. Cavaney green
cal · 1961
11995–1995
Tebbets v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. green
cal · 1909
11995–1995
People v. Cornejo green
calctapp · 1979
11993–1993
Simmons v. United States green
scotus · 1968
11993–1993
People v. Walker green
cal · 1991
11993–1993
People v. Thomas green
calctapp · 1974
11986–1986
People v. Withers green
calctapp · 1946
11964–1964
People v. Huerta green
calctapp · 1957
11964–1964
Killpatrick v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1957
11964–1964
People v. De Georgio green
calctapp · 1960
11964–1964

Where else courts name it

TX 52 (1979–2025) WA 41 (1983–2026) IN 25 (1987–2020) CA 22 (1923–2025) FL 15 (1990–2021) PA 15 (1988–2023) MI 12 (1983–2024) NY 8 (1982–2023) GA 6 (1911–2026) IL 5 (1993–2020) OH 4 (2000–2008) MO 4 (1979–2016) MN 4 (1929–2024) AL 4 (2010–2023) NC 3 (1931–2026) AZ 3 (2017–2024) OR 3 (1882–1976) NM 3 (1960–2008) CO 3 (2002–2021) LA 3 (1989–2008) MA 3 (1997–2013) IA 2 (2014–2020) KS 2 (1976–1998) WV 2 (1998–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check