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.
20 California opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bolanos v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2025Although a local community’s interest in a bicycle accident may be relatively insubstantial, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a local community’s interest in accidents involving its citizens in its airspace is “very strong.” (Piper, supra, 454 U.S. at p. 260 .) Finally, a trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens in an unrelated case, Cabrera v. Robinson Helicopter (Aug. 28, 2018, BC514477) 2018 Cal. Super. 11544, does not assist us in determining whether the trial court here abused its discretion. “[A] written trial court ruling h | 1 | 1 |
In Re Molzgreen1 sentence2025Although a local community’s interest in a bicycle accident may be relatively insubstantial, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a local community’s interest in accidents involving its citizens in its airspace is “very strong.” (Piper, supra, 454 U.S. at p. 260 .) Finally, a trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens in an unrelated case, Cabrera v. Robinson Helicopter (Aug. 28, 2018, BC514477) 2018 Cal. Super. 11544, does not assist us in determining whether the trial court here abused its discretion. “[A] written trial court ruling h | 1 | 1 |
Godfrey v. Steinpressgreen2 sentences2025(See Vines, supra, at *6 [“the issue of whether the knowledge that … there is a foreign object in his back caused plaintiff’s ‘emotional upset’ does not necessarily require specialized knowledge”]; see also Godfrey, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 186 .) Accordingly, the trial court erred in sustaining Robinson’s objection to Smith’s declaration on grounds of relevancy, lacks-foundation, calls-for-speculation, and calls-for-expert-testimony. 2025(See Vines, supra, at *6 [“the issue of whether the knowledge that … there is a foreign object in his back caused plaintiff’s ‘emotional upset’ does not necessarily require specialized knowledge”]; see also Godfrey, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 186 .) Accordingly, the trial court erred in sustaining Robinson’s objection to Smith’s declaration on grounds of relevancy, lacks-foundation, calls-for-speculation, and calls-for-expert-testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Salazar v. Matejcekgreen2 sentences2016There Was Substantial Evidence Supporting the Court’s Factual Findings, and Issuance of the Injunction Was Not an Abuse of Discretion. “ ‘The grant or denial of a permanent injunction rests within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. [Citation.] The exercise of discretion must be supported by the evidence and, “to the extent the trial court had to review the evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, and draw inferences from the presented facts, [we] review such factual findings under a substantial evidence st 2016There Was Substantial Evidence Supporting the Court’s Factual Findings, and Issuance of the Injunction Was Not an Abuse of Discretion. “ ‘The grant or denial of a permanent injunction rests within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. [Citation.] The exercise of discretion must be supported by the evidence and, “to the extent the trial court had to review the evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, and draw inferences from the presented facts, [we] review such factual findings under a substantial evidence st | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2008(People v. Robinson (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 528, 531 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 851 ].) Section 836, subdivision (a), provides that a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant whenever “(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence.” We join several other courts in expressly rejecting the Robinson analysis. 2008(People v. Robinson (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 528, 531 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 851 ].) Section 836, subdivision (a), provides that a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant whenever “(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence.” We join several other courts in expressly rejecting the Robinson analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2006STANDARD OF REVIEW “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ] (Aguilar).) A defendant is entitled to summary judgment only if “no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Miller v. Department of Corrections *159 (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 2006STANDARD OF REVIEW “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ] (Aguilar).) A defendant is entitled to summary judgment only if “no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Miller v. Department of Corrections *159 (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d | 1 | 1 |
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2006STANDARD OF REVIEW “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ] (Aguilar).) A defendant is entitled to summary judgment only if “no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Miller v. Department of Corrections *159 (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 2006STANDARD OF REVIEW “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ] (Aguilar).) A defendant is entitled to summary judgment only if “no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Miller v. Department of Corrections *159 (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d | 1 | 1 |
Goebel v. Lauderdalegreen2 sentences1992Finally, Robinson’s claim accrued when he exhausted his administrative remedies without regard to potential judicial remedies.” (Id. at p. 592; see also Goebel v. Lauderdale (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1502 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 275 ] [cause of action for attorney malpractice accrues when client is convicted of crime].) The Court of Appeal herein also criticized the above cases for relying on the “irremediable damage” rule rejected by the Legislature when it adopted section 340.6. 1992Finally, Robinson’s claim accrued when he exhausted his administrative remedies without regard to potential judicial remedies.” (Id. at p. 592; see also Goebel v. Lauderdale (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1502 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 275 ] [cause of action for attorney malpractice accrues when client is convicted of crime].) The Court of Appeal herein also criticized the above cases for relying on the “irremediable damage” rule rejected by the Legislature when it adopted section 340.6. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zapatagreen2 sentences1972The same contention made by appellant here was made in People v. Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 905-907 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 ], by Zapata, a heroin addict convicted of possession of heroin in violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code, and rejected by the court therein. 1972The same contention made by appellant here was made in People v. Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 905-907 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 ], by Zapata, a heroin addict convicted of possession of heroin in violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code, and rejected by the court therein. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024(Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 334 ; see also Taylor, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 991-992 [defendant surety made prima facie showing that summary judgment was proper because it was not a joint employer of the plaintiff].) D. 2023While Robinson contends this was evidence of unlawful disability discrimination, she has not presented any evidence that the explanation was also a pretext for gender discrimination. ( Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 353, 357.) The trial court properly granted summary adjudication of Robinson’s claim for gender discrimination. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
People v. Virgil
green
2 sentences2024(See People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1260 .) Even so, we consider the merits of Robinson’s argument. 2022(See People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1260 .) Even so, we consider the merits of Robinson’s argument. | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
green
1 sentence2025Although a local community’s interest in a bicycle accident may be relatively insubstantial, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a local community’s interest in accidents involving its citizens in its airspace is “very strong.” (Piper, supra, 454 U.S. at p. 260 .) Finally, a trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens in an unrelated case, Cabrera v. Robinson Helicopter (Aug. 28, 2018, BC514477) 2018 Cal. Super. 11544, does not assist us in determining whether the trial court here abused its discretion. “[A] written trial court ruling h | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Holford
green
1 sentence2023A party cannot argue on appeal that evidence was improperly admitted unless he or she objected to the specific evidence on the same basis in the trial court, because “[a] party cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct.” (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 , italics omitted.) The parties discussed sections 352 and 1101 in connection with the prosecution’s motion in limine to admit evidence of the February 2020 shooting and Robinson’s motion to exclude all evidence of his prior misconduct. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Warburton
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 822 .) As far as Robinson’s claim that his counsel had failed to advise him of applicable sentencing law, the record is devoid of any such supporting evidence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Gallardo
green
1 sentence2021Given that the prosecution’s argument relied on Robinson’s conduct, not the street terrorism conviction itself, and the jury instructions did not include street terrorism as a predicate offense, it is not reasonably probable the jury used Robinson’s street terrorism conviction as a predicate. 15 Defendant also contends no evidence was presented about the factual basis for Robinson’s plea, and that the jury could not adopt a theory of guilt different from that upon which his conviction was based, citing People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 136 , and In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, 156 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. O'Dell
green
1 sentence2021“An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] The court reviews instructions in context of the entire charge of jury instructions rather than in artificial isolation. [Citation.]” (O’Dell, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574 .) We turn first to Robinson’s challenge to CALCRIM No. 1820. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Sakarias
green
1 sentence2021Given that the prosecution’s argument relied on Robinson’s conduct, not the street terrorism conviction itself, and the jury instructions did not include street terrorism as a predicate offense, it is not reasonably probable the jury used Robinson’s street terrorism conviction as a predicate. 15 Defendant also contends no evidence was presented about the factual basis for Robinson’s plea, and that the jury could not adopt a theory of guilt different from that upon which his conviction was based, citing People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 136 , and In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, 156 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Soper
green
1 sentence2015Notwithstanding this conclusion, we must still determine whether, considering the same factors in hindsight, the joinder of the two sets of charges "actually resulted in 'gross unfairness' amounting to a denial of [Robinson's] constitutional right to fair trial or due process of law." (Merriman, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 46 ; Soper, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 783-784.) Robinson has not persuaded us it did. 8 The relevance and cross-admissibility of the DNA collection and test processing evidence became more apparent as the trial progressed because Robinson's defense was the guns were not his, he h | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Merriman
green
1 sentence2015Notwithstanding this conclusion, we must still determine whether, considering the same factors in hindsight, the joinder of the two sets of charges "actually resulted in 'gross unfairness' amounting to a denial of [Robinson's] constitutional right to fair trial or due process of law." (Merriman, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 46 ; Soper, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 783-784.) Robinson has not persuaded us it did. 8 The relevance and cross-admissibility of the DNA collection and test processing evidence became more apparent as the trial progressed because Robinson's defense was the guns were not his, he h | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2014Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel mentions as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Robinson's plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether the court complied with its duty to establish a sufficient factual basis for the plea (Pen. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2009That Robinson's hearing would be held six years after the fact aggravates these difficulties." ( Pate, supra, 383 U.S. at p. 387 .) That was the entirety of the Pate court's discussion of retrospective competency hearings. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Robinson v. George
green
2 sentences1983(See Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 243-244.) In cases such as this, however, the practical effect of applying the Robinson presumption would be to shift to defendant owners the burden of proving that those who perform work are not employees but are, rather, contractors. 9 If a presumption of employee status were applied, a plaintiff who is in fact an unlicensed contractor would simply plead employee status, establish at trial that he or she performed some work on a job site, and shift the burden to the owner to show that plaintiff was a contractor. 1983(See Robinson v. George, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 243-244.) In cases such as this, however, the practical effect of applying the Robinson presumption would be to shift to defendant owners the burden of proving that those who perform work are not employees but are, rather, contractors. 9 If a presumption of employee status were applied, a plaintiff who is in fact an unlicensed contractor would simply plead employee status, establish at trial that he or she performed some work on a job site, and shift the burden to the owner to show that plaintiff was a contractor. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Nomellini Construction Co. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Water Resources
green
2 sentences1979Resources (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 240 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 682 ], the court followed the Robinson rule and held that the trial court was obligated to apportion the delays between the state and a contractor and to enforce a liquidated damage provision. 1979Resources (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 240 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 682 ], the court followed the Robinson rule and held that the trial court was obligated to apportion the delays between the state and a contractor and to enforce a liquidated damage provision. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.