built-in presumption in California

2017In general, "[a] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is applied retroactively to all cases pending on appeal or not yet final, even if the new rule presents a 'clear break' with the past." ( People v. Song (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 973 , 982, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 .) While this general principle was developed specifically with respect to new rules of law announced by the United States Supreme Court ( People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965 , 974, fn. 4, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 , 155 P.3d 205 ), California similarly recognizes that " '[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply "retroactively." [Cita

2017In general, "[a] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is applied retroactively to all cases pending on appeal or not yet final, even if the new rule presents a 'clear break' with the past." ( People v. Song (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 973 , 982, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 .) While this general principle was developed specifically with respect to new rules of law announced by the United States Supreme Court ( People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965 , 974, fn. 4, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 , 155 P.3d 205 ), California similarly recognizes that " '[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply "retroactively." [Cita

1994(People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “ ‘[A] legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ ” (Ibid.) When the California Supreme Court “undertakes to vindicate the original meaning of an enactment, putting into effect the policy intended from its inception, retroactive application is essential to accomplish that aim.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 549 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ].) Even when a new rule of law is established, the decision will be applied retroactively to all cases not yet final if the

1994(People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “ ‘[A] legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ ” (Ibid.) When the California Supreme Court “undertakes to vindicate the original meaning of an enactment, putting into effect the policy intended from its inception, retroactive application is essential to accomplish that aim.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 549 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ].) Even when a new rule of law is established, the decision will be applied retroactively to all cases not yet final if the

1992(Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 856 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 282 ]; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) § 323, pp. 333-334.) The United States Supreme Court has indicated that “[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Salem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ].) The California Supreme Court has similarly so indicated.

1992(Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 856 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 282 ]; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) § 323, pp. 333-334.) The United States Supreme Court has indicated that “[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Salem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ].) The California Supreme Court has similarly so indicated.

1987If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive ... but if it does not `no question of retroactivity arises,' because there is no material change in the law." ( Id., at p. 399, quoting Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ].) "`As a rule, judicial decisions apply "retroactively." [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.' [Citation.]" ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 399, quoting Solem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ].) Decisions which "e

1987If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive ... but if it does not `no question of retroactivity arises,' because there is no material change in the law." ( Id., at p. 399, quoting Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ].) "`As a rule, judicial decisions apply "retroactively." [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.' [Citation.]" ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 399, quoting Solem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ].) Decisions which "e

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) Counties, citing Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 430 [ 116 P.2d 37 ], claim that the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof regarding the retroactive application of Ventura to them.

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

2005"As a rule, judicial decisions apply `retroactively.' [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity." [Citation.]' ( People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ....) "An example which illustrates the type of decision that does not establish a new rule of law and therefore should be applied to all cases not yet final is one that gives `effect to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued....' ( People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d, fn. 13 at p. 399, 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 .)" ( Crow

2003“As a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Crowe (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 86, 94-95 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 319 ].) “The most common examples of decisions that do not establish a new rule of law in this sense are those which explain or refine the holding of a prior case, those which apply an existing precedent to a different fact situation, even if the result may be said to ‘extend’ the precedent, or those which draw a conclusion that was clearly implied in

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

1986(Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 151 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Fans (1957) 48 Cal.2d 672, 680-681 [ 312 P.2d 680 ].) “As a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Solem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ]; People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) Plaintiffs do not come within the exception where considerations of fairness and public policy preclude retroa

2017In general, "[a] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is applied retroactively to all cases pending on appeal or not yet final, even if the new rule presents a 'clear break' with the past." ( People v. Song (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 973 , 982, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 .) While this general principle was developed specifically with respect to new rules of law announced by the United States Supreme Court ( People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965 , 974, fn. 4, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 , 155 P.3d 205 ), California similarly recognizes that " '[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply "retroactively." [Cita

2017In general, "[a] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is applied retroactively to all cases pending on appeal or not yet final, even if the new rule presents a 'clear break' with the past." ( People v. Song (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 973 , 982, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 .) While this general principle was developed specifically with respect to new rules of law announced by the United States Supreme Court ( People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965 , 974, fn. 4, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 , 155 P.3d 205 ), California similarly recognizes that " '[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply "retroactively." [Cita

2011If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.] In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare decisis applies in all cases not yet final. ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ]

2011If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.] In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare decisis applies in all cases not yet final. ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ]

2010The court, however, explained that “there is ample case law holding that the 90-day requirement applies to all types of actions seeking review of a legislative or advisory body’s subdivision-related decisions under the SMA, regardless of the legal basis.” (Friends, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 750 , citing Presenting Jamul v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 665, 671-672 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 564 ]; Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 26-27 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ].) The court’s holding in Friends did not materially change the law.

2010The court, however, explained that “there is ample case law holding that the 90-day requirement applies to all types of actions seeking review of a legislative or advisory body’s subdivision-related decisions under the SMA, regardless of the legal basis.” (Friends, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 750 , citing Presenting Jamul v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 665, 671-672 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 564 ]; Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 26-27 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ].) The court’s holding in Friends did not materially change the law.

2010Proc., § 412.10 [“After payment of all applicable fees, the plaintiff may have the clerk issue one or more summons for any defendant.”].) “The clerk, as a ministerial officer of the court, is subject to the control of the judge,” and the “normal remedy of a party aggrieved by an act or omission of the clerk is to apply to the court for an order directed to the clerk.” (2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Courts, § 362, p. 463.) We are unpersuaded by Torrey Hills’s argument that Friends should be applied only to writ petitions filed after its date of publication. “ ‘ “As a rule, judicial decisions

2010Proc., § 412.10 [“After payment of all applicable fees, the plaintiff may have the clerk issue one or more summons for any defendant.”].) “The clerk, as a ministerial officer of the court, is subject to the control of the judge,” and the “normal remedy of a party aggrieved by an act or omission of the clerk is to apply to the court for an order directed to the clerk.” (2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Courts, § 362, p. 463.) We are unpersuaded by Torrey Hills’s argument that Friends should be applied only to writ petitions filed after its date of publication. “ ‘ “As a rule, judicial decisions

2010The court, however, explained that “there is ample case law holding that the 90-day requirement applies to all types of actions seeking review of a legislative or advisory body’s subdivision-related decisions under the SMA, regardless of the legal basis.” (Friends, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 750 , citing Presenting Jamul v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 665, 671-672 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 564 ]; Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 26-27 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ].) The court’s holding in Friends did not materially change the law.

2010The court, however, explained that “there is ample case law holding that the 90-day requirement applies to all types of actions seeking review of a legislative or advisory body’s subdivision-related decisions under the SMA, regardless of the legal basis.” (Friends, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 750 , citing Presenting Jamul v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 665, 671-672 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 564 ]; Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 26-27 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ].) The court’s holding in Friends did not materially change the law.

2009Having now considered the issue, we conclude that limiting our ruling to prospective application only would be improper. “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ ” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “ ‘The general rule that judicial decisions are given retroactive effect is basic in our legal tradition.’ [Citation.] Courts sometimes make an exception to this general rule when the decision changed a settled rule on which the parties h

2009Having now considered the issue, we conclude that limiting our ruling to prospective application only would be improper. “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ ” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “ ‘The general rule that judicial decisions are given retroactive effect is basic in our legal tradition.’ [Citation.] Courts sometimes make an exception to this general rule when the decision changed a settled rule on which the parties h

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003Code, § 822.) Counties attempt to circumscribe this rule to criminal and tort cases, but this general rule of retroactivity has been applied without regard to the area of law at issue (see Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 995, fn. 3 (dis. opn. of Broussard, J.)). “ ' “Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” [Citation.]’ ” (McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ] (McManigal).) Our Supreme Court has “recognized exceptions to [the general rule of retroactivity] when considerations of fairness and public pol

2003In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) Counties, citing Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 430 [ 116 P.2d 37 ], claim that the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof regarding the retroactive application of Ventura to them.

2003In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (Newman, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) Counties, citing Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 430 [ 116 P.2d 37 ], claim that the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof regarding the retroactive application of Ventura to them.

1996(People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 102 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 576 , 634 P.2d 927 ], abrogated on another point by constitutional amendment as stated in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1222-1223 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 842 P.2d 1 ]; cf. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1003 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d l].) 6 “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr., 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “In determining

1996(People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 102 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 576 , 634 P.2d 927 ], abrogated on another point by constitutional amendment as stated in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1222-1223 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 842 P.2d 1 ]; cf. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1003 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d l].) 6 “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr., 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “In determining

1996(People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 102 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 576 , 634 P.2d 927 ], abrogated on another point by constitutional amendment as stated in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1222-1223 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 842 P.2d 1 ]; cf. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1003 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d l].) 6 “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr., 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “In determining

1996(People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 102 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 576 , 634 P.2d 927 ], abrogated on another point by constitutional amendment as stated in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1222-1223 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 842 P.2d 1 ]; cf. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1003 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d l].) 6 “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr., 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “In determining

1996(People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 102 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 576 , 634 P.2d 927 ], abrogated on another point by constitutional amendment as stated in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1222-1223 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 842 P.2d 1 ]; cf. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1003 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d l].) 6 “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr., 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “In determining

1996(People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88, 102 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 576 , 634 P.2d 927 ], abrogated on another point by constitutional amendment as stated in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1222-1223 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 842 P.2d 1 ]; cf. People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1003 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d l].) 6 “ ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr., 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) “In determining

1994(People v. Lopez (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 225, 229 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 ].) There can be no justifiable reliance on an old rule when no old rule existed.

1994(People v. Lopez (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 225, 229 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 ].) There can be no justifiable reliance on an old rule when no old rule existed.

1992(Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 856 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 282 ]; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) § 323, pp. 333-334.) The United States Supreme Court has indicated that “[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Salem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ].) The California Supreme Court has similarly so indicated.

1992(Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 856 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 282 ]; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) § 323, pp. 333-334.) The United States Supreme Court has indicated that “[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Salem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638, 642 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 ].) The California Supreme Court has similarly so indicated.

1984“As a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (S olem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1341 ].) The most common examples of decisions that do not establish a new rule of law in this sense are those which explain or refine the holding of a prior case, those which apply an existing precedent to a different fact situation, even if the result may be said to “extend” the precedent, or those which draw a conclusion that was clearly implied in or anticipated

1984“As a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively.’ [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (S olem v. Stumes (1984) 465 U.S. 638 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 579, 586 , 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1341 ].) The most common examples of decisions that do not establish a new rule of law in this sense are those which explain or refine the holding of a prior case, those which apply an existing precedent to a different fact situation, even if the result may be said to “extend” the precedent, or those which draw a conclusion that was clearly implied in or anticipated