notable exception in California

2019Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Ling) is a notable exception.

2019Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Ling) is a notable exception.

2024When the issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided in the former proceeding, the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits, and the parties are the same. ( Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 451–452, citing Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 716 .)3 3 A notable exception is the issue of reckless indifference in cases tried before the decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and 6 Defendants contend the intent to kill holding in Samaniego cannot have preclusive effect because instructions other than CALCRIM No. 702 allowed the jury to find imputed malice.

2024A contrary conclusion would allow the trial court to render an appeal futile.” (Id. at p. 198.) Similar principles apply in many criminal appeals.8 (See People v. Murphy (1969) 70 Cal.2d 109, 116 .) In general, 8 The notable exception is, of course, the absence of any automatic stay of the execution of an order of probation or criminal judgment, other than in cases where a sentence of death has been imposed.

2024But if the material facts are certain or undisputed, the existence of a contract is a question for the court to decide.’ ” (HM DG, Inc. v. Amini (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1109 .) Where the question before us “requires us to consider legal concepts in the mix of fact and law and to exercise judgment about the values that animate legal principles, then … the question should be classified as one of law and reviewed de novo.” (McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 810 .) County largely accepts the trial court’s findings of fact—a notable exception being the finding t

2024When the issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided in the former proceeding, the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits, and the parties are the same. ( Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 451–452, citing Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 716 .)3 3 A notable exception is the issue of reckless indifference in cases tried before the decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and 6 Defendants contend the intent to kill holding in Samaniego cannot have preclusive effect because instructions other than CALCRIM No. 702 allowed the jury to find imputed malice.

2024When the issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided in the former proceeding, the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits, and the parties are the same. ( Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 451–452, citing Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 716 .)3 3 A notable exception is the issue of reckless indifference in cases tried before the decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and 6 Defendants contend the intent to kill holding in Samaniego cannot have preclusive effect because instructions other than CALCRIM No. 702 allowed the jury to find imputed malice.

2024(Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 42 F.4th 1013, 1020-1021 (Callahan); Prete v. Bradbury (9th Cir. 2006) 438 F.3d 949 , 957 (Prete); Arakaki, supra, 324 F.3d at p. 1086.) When the parties share the same ultimate objective, mere differences in litigation strategy or legal 4 The most notable exception is when the proposed intervenor has an alternative forum or other means to protect its interest.

2024But if the material facts are certain or undisputed, the existence of a contract is a question for the court to decide.’ ” (HM DG, Inc. v. Amini (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1109 .) Where the question before us “requires us to consider legal concepts in the mix of fact and law and to exercise judgment about the values that animate legal principles, then … the question should be classified as one of law and reviewed de novo.” (McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 810 .) County largely accepts the trial court’s findings of fact—a notable exception being the finding t

2024When the issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided in the former proceeding, the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits, and the parties are the same. ( Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 451–452, citing Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 716 .)3 3 A notable exception is the issue of reckless indifference in cases tried before the decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and 6 Defendants contend the intent to kill holding in Samaniego cannot have preclusive effect because instructions other than CALCRIM No. 702 allowed the jury to find imputed malice.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 426–427; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 727 ; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 640–642 & fn. 20; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691 , 730–731 & fn. 19; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 ; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 115 .) Nevertheless, in criminal appeals, there is a notable exception to these established tenets when a Wende or “no issue” brief has been filed.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 426–427; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 727 ; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 640–642 & fn. 20; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691 , 730–731 & fn. 19; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 ; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 115 .) Nevertheless, in criminal appeals, there is a notable exception to these established tenets when a Wende or “no issue” brief has been filed.

2021Following the filing of a Wende brief, an appellate court is required to independently review the record for error. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) In this context, the reviewing court must don two hats—the one as a neutral arbiter, the other as an advocate looking for reversible error.7 Thus, as an appellate court tasked with Wende review, we cannot turn a blind eye to apparent errors discovered during our independent review of the record.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 426–427; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 727 ; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 640–642 & fn. 20; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691 , 730–731 & fn. 19; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 ; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 115 .) Nevertheless, in criminal appeals, there is a notable exception to these established tenets when a Wende or “no issue” brief has been filed.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 426–427; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 727 ; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 640–642 & fn. 20; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691 , 730–731 & fn. 19; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 ; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 115 .) Nevertheless, in criminal appeals, there is a notable exception to these established tenets when a Wende or “no issue” brief has been filed.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 426–427; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 727 ; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 640–642 & fn. 20; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691 , 730–731 & fn. 19; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 ; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 115 .) Nevertheless, in criminal appeals, there is a notable exception to these established tenets when a Wende or “no issue” brief has been filed.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 426–427; People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 727 ; People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 , 640–642 & fn. 20; People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691 , 730–731 & fn. 19; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 ; People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 115 .) Nevertheless, in criminal appeals, there is a notable exception to these established tenets when a Wende or “no issue” brief has been filed.

2020To the extent Ayala did not have time resources to devote to locating A.T.’s whereabouts in Mexico, it is inexplicable why the prosecution 10 A notable exception was explained in Herrera where the witness had been deported to El Salvador, a country with no type of treaty or agreement to compel or facilitate a witness’s attendance at a trial in the United States. ( Herrera, supra, 49 Cal.4th. at pp. 628–629.) In that situation, even assuming the steps to locate the witness in El Salvador came too late, the search was deemed futile because there was no possible way to obtain his return to give t

2008(See fn. 5, ante.) 8 Burger King stated in dicta: “We have previously noted that when commercial activities are ‘carried on in behalf of’ an out-of-state party those activities may sometimes be ascribed to the party, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, [supra,] 326 U.S. 310 , 320 . . . , at least where he is a ‘primary participant] ’ in the enterprise and has acted purposefully in directing those activities, Calder v. Jones, [supra,] 465 U.S., at p. 790 .” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 479, fn. 22 .) 9 The exercise of personal jurisdiction formerly depended on the defendant’s “presence

2008(See fn. 5, ante.) 8 Burger King stated in dicta: “We have previously noted that when commercial activities are ‘carried on in behalf of’ an out-of-state party those activities may sometimes be ascribed to the party, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, [supra,] 326 U.S. 310 , 320 . . . , at least where he is a ‘primary participant] ’ in the enterprise and has acted purposefully in directing those activities, Calder v. Jones, [supra,] 465 U.S., at p. 790 .” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 479, fn. 22 .) 9 The exercise of personal jurisdiction formerly depended on the defendant’s “presence

2006(See, e.g., Smith v. Governing Bd. of Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 563 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Elk Grove) [teacher with social science credential who taught special education classes that were not authorized by her credential was required to work under an emergency specialist permit].) 18 Section 44917 (see fn. 14, ante) contains the same provision, with the notable exception that a temporary teacher need not be reemployed the following year in a vacant position in order for the previous year’s service to be deemed probationary.

2006(See, e.g., Smith v. Governing Bd. of Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 563 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Elk Grove) [teacher with social science credential who taught special education classes that were not authorized by her credential was required to work under an emergency specialist permit].) 18 Section 44917 (see fn. 14, ante) contains the same provision, with the notable exception that a temporary teacher need not be reemployed the following year in a vacant position in order for the previous year’s service to be deemed probationary.

2004P. Assn. (1954) 222 Miss. 260 [ 76 So.2d 212, 219 ]; Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dileo (La.Ct.App. 1955) 79 So.2d 150, 154 .) 6 A notable exception is the seminal Montgomery case, which approved use of a public right-of-way for what appears to have been a private railway company without ever mentioning the company’s private status.

2004(Montgomery, supra, 104 Cal. at p. 187 .) Section 862, subdivision 13, of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1883, then in effect, authorized municipalities to permit railway service and lay tracks on public streets.

2004P. Assn. (1954) 222 Miss. 260 [ 76 So.2d 212, 219 ]; Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dileo (La.Ct.App. 1955) 79 So.2d 150, 154 .) 6 A notable exception is the seminal Montgomery case, which approved use of a public right-of-way for what appears to have been a private railway company without ever mentioning the company’s private status.

2004P. Assn. (1954) 222 Miss. 260 [ 76 So.2d 212, 219 ]; Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dileo (La.Ct.App. 1955) 79 So.2d 150, 154 .) 6 A notable exception is the seminal Montgomery case, which approved use of a public right-of-way for what appears to have been a private railway company without ever mentioning the company’s private status.