18 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dockery v. Hyattgreen1 sentence2024In ruling on a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution, the court “must consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including: [¶] (1) The court’s file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process; [¶] (2) The diligence in seeking to effect service of process; [¶] (3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions; [¶] (4) The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pr | 1 | 1 |
In Re Rashad B.green1 sentence2015“In California, the right to appeal is entirely statutory. [Citations.] The Legislature has decreed that no direct appeal lies from an order setting a section 366.26 hearing. [Citation.] . . . [¶] Because the right to appeal is purely statutory, an appellate court cannot confer the right to appeal as a remedy for the juvenile court’s failure to advise a party of the writ requirement. [Citation.] Instead, we believe the proper approach to the juvenile court’s failure to advise a party of the writ requirement is that the party is entitled to obtain direct review of the order setting a section 36 | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Tennesseegreen2 sentences2012Defendant also claims the timing of the evidence’s admission deprived him of sufficient opportunity for his counsel to “appropriately . . . challenge the legitimacy of the prosecution’s spin on the family’s estrangement.” “A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about ... the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 ].) “The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ a 2012Defendant also claims the timing of the evidence’s admission deprived him of sufficient opportunity for his counsel to “appropriately . . . challenge the legitimacy of the prosecution’s spin on the family’s estrangement.” “A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about ... the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 ].) “The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2012Defendant also claims the timing of the evidence’s admission deprived him of sufficient opportunity for his counsel to “appropriately . . . challenge the legitimacy of the prosecution’s spin on the family’s estrangement.” “A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about ... the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 ].) “The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ a 2012Defendant also claims the timing of the evidence’s admission deprived him of sufficient opportunity for his counsel to “appropriately . . . challenge the legitimacy of the prosecution’s spin on the family’s estrangement.” “A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about ... the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 ].) “The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2012Defendant also claims the timing of the evidence’s admission deprived him of sufficient opportunity for his counsel to “appropriately . . . challenge the legitimacy of the prosecution’s spin on the family’s estrangement.” “A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about ... the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 ].) “The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ a 2012Defendant also claims the timing of the evidence’s admission deprived him of sufficient opportunity for his counsel to “appropriately . . . challenge the legitimacy of the prosecution’s spin on the family’s estrangement.” “A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about ... the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” (Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 827 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 720 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 ].) “The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2002(See People v. Franklin (1999) 20 Cal.4th 249, 253 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 975 P.2d 30 ] [“registration statutes, ... to assure effective compliance, must give clear notice to all registrants of their responsibilities”; cf. People v. Garcia, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 752 [jury may infer from proof of notice that defendant had actual knowledge of registration requirement].) In addition, the trial court’s instructions not only did not tell the jury about the necessity that appellant purposefully violate the registration statute, but the court compounded this error by instructing the jury that “[dep | 1 | 1 |
People v. Franklingreen2 sentences2002(See People v. Franklin (1999) 20 Cal.4th 249, 253 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 975 P.2d 30 ] [“registration statutes, ... to assure effective compliance, must give clear notice to all registrants of their responsibilities”; cf. People v. Garcia, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 752 [jury may infer from proof of notice that defendant had actual knowledge of registration requirement].) In addition, the trial court’s instructions not only did not tell the jury about the necessity that appellant purposefully violate the registration statute, but the court compounded this error by instructing the jury that “[dep 2002(See People v. Franklin (1999) 20 Cal.4th 249, 253 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 975 P.2d 30 ] [“registration statutes, ... to assure effective compliance, must give clear notice to all registrants of their responsibilities”; cf. People v. Garcia, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 752 [jury may infer from proof of notice that defendant had actual knowledge of registration requirement].) In addition, the trial court’s instructions not only did not tell the jury about the necessity that appellant purposefully violate the registration statute, but the court compounded this error by instructing the jury that “[dep | 1 | 1 |
People v. Elizegreen2 sentences1999(See ibid.; People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 157 ; People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 611-616 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 ].) Moreover, the trial court compounded the error and bypassed an opportunity to cure it when it responded to the jury’s inquiry seeking a clarification of the instructions. 1999(See ibid.; People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 157 ; People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 611-616 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 ].) Moreover, the trial court compounded the error and bypassed an opportunity to cure it when it responded to the jury’s inquiry seeking a clarification of the instructions. | 1 | 1 |
Olincy v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc.green2 sentences1991The California Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law (Corp. Code, § 9110 et seq.) requires that the activities and affairs of a religious nonprofit corporation, like KUPC, be conducted and its corporate powers exercised under the direction of its board, subject to the provisions of the Corporations Code and to “any provision in the articles or bylaws.” (Corp. Code, § 9210.) The articles and bylaws of a corporation constitute rules of law adopted for its internal governance “ ‘to regulate the conduct and prescribe the rights and duties of its members towards itself and among themselves in referen 1991The California Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law (Corp. Code, § 9110 et seq.) requires that the activities and affairs of a religious nonprofit corporation, like KUPC, be conducted and its corporate powers exercised under the direction of its board, subject to the provisions of the Corporations Code and to “any provision in the articles or bylaws.” (Corp. Code, § 9210.) The articles and bylaws of a corporation constitute rules of law adopted for its internal governance “ ‘to regulate the conduct and prescribe the rights and duties of its members towards itself and among themselves in referen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guerragreen2 sentences1988(People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 670 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 738 P.2d 752 ]; People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377, 386-387 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 708 P.2d 1252 ].) As recently stated in Lee , “implied malice instructions should never be given in relation to an attempted murder charge. [Citations.]” (43 Cal.3d at p.670.) Having concluded this was error, we must decide whether it was harmless. 1988(People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 670 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 738 P.2d 752 ]; People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377, 386-387 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 708 P.2d 1252 ].) As recently stated in Lee , “implied malice instructions should never be given in relation to an attempted murder charge. [Citations.]” (43 Cal.3d at p.670.) Having concluded this was error, we must decide whether it was harmless. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leegreen2 sentences1988(People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 670 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 738 P.2d 752 ]; People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377, 386-387 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 708 P.2d 1252 ].) As recently stated in Lee , “implied malice instructions should never be given in relation to an attempted murder charge. [Citations.]” (43 Cal.3d at p.670.) Having concluded this was error, we must decide whether it was harmless. 1988(People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 670 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 738 P.2d 752 ]; People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377, 386-387 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 708 P.2d 1252 ].) As recently stated in Lee , “implied malice instructions should never be given in relation to an attempted murder charge. [Citations.]” (43 Cal.3d at p.670.) Having concluded this was error, we must decide whether it was harmless. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hathcockgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Woodberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cohen v. Hughes Markets, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024In ruling on a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution, the court “must consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including: [¶] (1) The court’s file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process; [¶] (2) The diligence in seeking to effect service of process; [¶] (3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions; [¶] (4) The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pr | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Peoples
green
1 sentence2024He claims the error violated his rights to due process and to a fair trial. “ ‘A prosecutor’s conduct violates a defendant’s constitutional rights when the behavior comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects “ ‘the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] The focus of the inquiry is on the effect of the prosecutor’s action on the defendant, not on the intent or bad faith of the prosecutor. [Citation.] Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ ‘ “ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence2024(Carter, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 770 (conc. & dis. opn. of Robie, J.).) “Motions and briefs of parties represented by counsel must be filed by such counsel.” (People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 173 .) A narrow exception to this rule allows the filing of “pro se motions regarding representation, including requests for new counsel.” (Ibid.) But Carter’s motion to dismiss, which was distinct from his Marsden motion, was not a request for new counsel. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Young
green
1 sentence2024He claims the error violated his rights to due process and to a fair trial. “ ‘A prosecutor’s conduct violates a defendant’s constitutional rights when the behavior comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects “ ‘the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] The focus of the inquiry is on the effect of the prosecutor’s action on the defendant, not on the intent or bad faith of the prosecutor. [Citation.] Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ ‘ “ | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Ketchel
green
2 sentences2017(Cf. id. at pp. 1205-1206, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548 , 574, 247 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503 , 519, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 .) Defendant claims that the trial court compounded its error in allowing the tape to be played by also permitting the jurors to use a transcript of the conversation *643 as an aid while listening to the tape during trial. 2017(Cf. id. at pp. 1205-1206, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548 , 574, 247 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503 , 519, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 .) Defendant claims that the trial court compounded its error in allowing the tape to be played by also permitting the jurors to use a transcript of the conversation *643 as an aid while listening to the tape during trial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Siripongs
green
2 sentences2017(Cf. id. at pp. 1205-1206, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548 , 574, 247 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503 , 519, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 .) Defendant claims that the trial court compounded its error in allowing the tape to be played by also permitting the jurors to use a transcript of the conversation *643 as an aid while listening to the tape during trial. 2017(Cf. id. at pp. 1205-1206, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548 , 574, 247 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503 , 519, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 .) Defendant claims that the trial court compounded its error in allowing the tape to be played by also permitting the jurors to use a transcript of the conversation *643 as an aid while listening to the tape during trial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Hajek and Vo
green
2 sentences2017(Cf. id. at pp. 1205-1206, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548 , 574, 247 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503 , 519, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 .) Defendant claims that the trial court compounded its error in allowing the tape to be played by also permitting the jurors to use a transcript of the conversation *643 as an aid while listening to the tape during trial. 2017(Cf. id. at pp. 1205-1206, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 , 324 P.3d 88 ; People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548 , 574, 247 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 754 P.2d 1306 ; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503 , 519, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 .) Defendant claims that the trial court compounded its error in allowing the tape to be played by also permitting the jurors to use a transcript of the conversation *643 as an aid while listening to the tape during trial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Maggie S. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2015“In California, the right to appeal is entirely statutory. [Citations.] The Legislature has decreed that no direct appeal lies from an order setting a section 366.26 hearing. [Citation.] . . . [¶] Because the right to appeal is purely statutory, an appellate court cannot confer the right to appeal as a remedy for the juvenile court’s failure to advise a party of the writ requirement. [Citation.] Instead, we believe the proper approach to the juvenile court’s failure to advise a party of the writ requirement is that the party is entitled to obtain direct review of the order setting a section 36 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College District
green
1 sentence2015(Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 275 .) DISPOSITION The trial court’s order denying plaintiff Enrico Vara leave to file a late tort claim is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
JENNIFER T. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2015“In California, the right to appeal is entirely statutory. [Citations.] The Legislature has decreed that no direct appeal lies from an order setting a section 366.26 hearing. [Citation.] . . . [¶] Because the right to appeal is purely statutory, an appellate court cannot confer the right to appeal as a remedy for the juvenile court’s failure to advise a party of the writ requirement. [Citation.] Instead, we believe the proper approach to the juvenile court’s failure to advise a party of the writ requirement is that the party is entitled to obtain direct review of the order setting a section 36 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Crane v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2015“Again, you will have a copy of the agreement, I think it’s in evidence, and it does require that he tell the truth, so go ahead.” The defense continued the prosecution had not proven that Leon and Clinton were not present in B.R.’s house. introduce this portion of the interview under Crane, supra, 476 U.S. 683 , to show the circumstances surrounding his confession. 29 Defendant contends the trial court improperly restricted closing argument by sustaining the objection.11 He contends the court compounded the error by improperly instructing the jury as to the terms of the immunity agreement.12 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mitchell Alfred Patterson v. James H. Gomez, Director
green
1 sentence2014Suazo relies on two federal cases, Stark v. Hickman (9th Cir. 2006) 455 F.3d 1070 and Patterson v. Gomez (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 959 , involving murder trials and bifurcated proceedings to address insanity pleas, as well as the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 675 (Mills), which was decided after the trial in this case. 6 Here, the court instructed prospective jurors during voir dire: "When a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, during the guilt phase of the trial, the defendant shall be conclusively presumed to have been sane at the time | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Thomas Lester Stark v. Rod Hickman, Warden
green
1 sentence2014Suazo relies on two federal cases, Stark v. Hickman (9th Cir. 2006) 455 F.3d 1070 and Patterson v. Gomez (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 959 , involving murder trials and bifurcated proceedings to address insanity pleas, as well as the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 675 (Mills), which was decided after the trial in this case. 6 Here, the court instructed prospective jurors during voir dire: "When a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, during the guilt phase of the trial, the defendant shall be conclusively presumed to have been sane at the time | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Atwood
green
1 sentence2013Failure to Instruct with CALCRIM No. 371 Rice contends the trial court compounded the error in admitting the jail note by failing to instruct sua sponte (with CALCRIM No. 371) the jury that if it found Rice 13 attempted to suppress or fabricate evidence, such consciousness of guilt evidence was insufficient alone to establish Rice‟s guilt.6 Relying on People v. Atwood (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 316 (Atwood), Rice contends the trial court had a duty to instruct sua sponte on the limitations of consciousness of guilt evidence. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Cleveland
green
2 sentences2013(See People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 1251-1252; Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 485 .) Defendants further argue the trial court compounded its error by giving the supplemental instruction. 2013(See People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 1251-1252; Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 485 .) Defendants further argue the trial court compounded its error by giving the supplemental instruction. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Russell
green
1 sentence2013(See People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 1251-1252; Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 485 .) Defendants further argue the trial court compounded its error by giving the supplemental instruction. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Silva
green
1 sentence2003(Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 386 .) The trial court compounded its error by committing a Snow violation: it attempted to justify the prosecutor’s conduct by pointing out that defense counsel had challenged a Hispanic juror. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Breverman
green
1 sentence1999(See ibid.; People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 157 ; People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 611-616 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 ].) Moreover, the trial court compounded the error and bypassed an opportunity to cure it when it responded to the jury’s inquiry seeking a clarification of the instructions. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence1988(Ante, at pp. 800-801.) Defendant also infers from Juror Hearn’s use of the term “balance the sheet” in her inquiry that she was following the type of “arithmetical formula” which this court condemned in Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| California v. Green red | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.
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.