18 California opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarottogreen2 sentences2018As such, the special requirements are preempted by the FAA. ( Doctor's Associates, supra , 517 U.S. at p. 687 , 116 S.Ct. 1652 [state law is preempted if it "conditions the enforceability of arbitration agreements on compliance with a special ... requirement not applicable to contracts generally"].) The legislative history of AB 2617 confirms that the Ralph Act's and Bane Act's special requirements represent a hostility to arbitration and their purpose is primarily, if not exclusively, to discourage arbitration of Ralph *325 Act and Bane Act claims. 9 A Senate Judiciary Committee analysis stat 2018As such, the special requirements are preempted by the FAA. ( Doctor's Associates, supra , 517 U.S. at p. 687 , 116 S.Ct. 1652 [state law is preempted if it "conditions the enforceability of arbitration agreements on compliance with a special ... requirement not applicable to contracts generally"].) The legislative history of AB 2617 confirms that the Ralph Act's and Bane Act's special requirements represent a hostility to arbitration and their purpose is primarily, if not exclusively, to discourage arbitration of Ralph *325 Act and Bane Act claims. 9 A Senate Judiciary Committee analysis stat | 1 | 2 |
People v. Riosgreen2 sentences2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. 2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeVaughngreen1 sentence2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. | 1 | 1 |
North Carolina v. Butlerred2 sentences2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. 2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2014(People v. Superior Court (Chapman) (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 [express or implied factual findings in motion to suppress reviewed for substantial evidence].) The police report stated officers obtained the signed waiver from appellant and his signature on the consent to search form resembled the signature on his booking slip, which supported finding the signature on the consent to search form was appellant’s. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zavalagreen2 sentences1990But Johnson did not meet his burden of producing evidence of a violation of a constitutional right, although a transcript of the plea was available to him for that purpose. *984 We agree with the court in People v. Zavala (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 429, 439 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 527 ]: “We are of the opinion that when the docket sheet contains a printed advisement of rights but also contains a notation that a further record exists, such as reporter’s notes or a defendant’s signed waiver form, ... [it is] incumbent on defendant to obtain, or at least to examine, the complete record and furnish some proof 1990But Johnson did not meet his burden of producing evidence of a violation of a constitutional right, although a transcript of the plea was available to him for that purpose. *984 We agree with the court in People v. Zavala (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 429, 439 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 527 ]: “We are of the opinion that when the docket sheet contains a printed advisement of rights but also contains a notation that a further record exists, such as reporter’s notes or a defendant’s signed waiver form, ... [it is] incumbent on defendant to obtain, or at least to examine, the complete record and furnish some proof | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moshergreen2 sentences1988Defendant also relies on language in People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 397 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 461 P.2d 659 ], where, after reversing on other grounds, we stated: “The court should have determined, outside the hearing of the jury, whether the waiver was voluntary, particularly in view of the expressed doubts as to the defendant’s mental competency, the absence of a signed waiver, and defendant’s apparent lack of counsel with whom to consult so soon after his arrest. 1988Defendant also relies on language in People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 397 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 461 P.2d 659 ], where, after reversing on other grounds, we stated: “The court should have determined, outside the hearing of the jury, whether the waiver was voluntary, particularly in view of the expressed doubts as to the defendant’s mental competency, the absence of a signed waiver, and defendant’s apparent lack of counsel with whom to consult so soon after his arrest. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Woodgreen2 sentences1974NOTES [1] As the court below noted in its memorandum opinion, the signed claim remained in the possession of the attorney for the estate. [2] All subsequent references are to the Probate Code unless otherwise indicated. [3] Thus, a rejection of a claim is merely a refusal to approve it and adjudicates nothing as to the merits of the claim ( Estate of Wood, 117 Cal. App.2d 132, 133 [ 254 P.2d 940 ]). [4] "When a claim is rejected either by the executor or administrator or by the judge, written notice of such rejection shall be given by the executor or administrator to the holder of the claim or 1974NOTES [1] As the court below noted in its memorandum opinion, the signed claim remained in the possession of the attorney for the estate. [2] All subsequent references are to the Probate Code unless otherwise indicated. [3] Thus, a rejection of a claim is merely a refusal to approve it and adjudicates nothing as to the merits of the claim ( Estate of Wood, 117 Cal. App.2d 132, 133 [ 254 P.2d 940 ]). [4] "When a claim is rejected either by the executor or administrator or by the judge, written notice of such rejection shall be given by the executor or administrator to the holder of the claim or | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2019In Seibert , the defendant was arrested and "questioned ... without Miranda warnings for 30 to 40 minutes," which resulted in the defendant's confession. ( Id. at pp. 604-605, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (plur. opn.).) The defendant was then given a 20-minute break, after which the interrogating officer "turned on a tape recorder, gave [defendant] the Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver of rights from her." ( Id. at p. 605, 124 S.Ct. 2601 .) The interrogating officer then confronted the defendant with her prewarning statements, and the defendant reaffirmed the substance of those statements. ( *9 2019In Seibert , the defendant was arrested and "questioned ... without Miranda warnings for 30 to 40 minutes," which resulted in the defendant's confession. ( Id. at pp. 604-605, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (plur. opn.).) The defendant was then given a 20-minute break, after which the interrogating officer "turned on a tape recorder, gave [defendant] the Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver of rights from her." ( Id. at p. 605, 124 S.Ct. 2601 .) The interrogating officer then confronted the defendant with her prewarning statements, and the defendant reaffirmed the substance of those statements. ( *9 | 2 | 2013–2019 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences1969The court should have determined, outside the hearing of the jury, whether the waiver was voluntary, particularly in view of the expressed doubts as to the defendant's mental competency, the absence of a signed waiver, and defendant's apparent lack of counsel with whom to consult so soon after his arrest. ( Jackson v. Denno (1964) 378 U.S. 368 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 ].) We expect that the trial court will follow the correct procedure on retrial. 6. 1969The court should have determined, outside the hearing of the jury, whether the waiver was voluntary, particularly in view of the expressed doubts as to the defendant's mental competency, the absence of a signed waiver, and defendant's apparent lack of counsel with whom to consult so soon after his arrest. ( Jackson v. Denno (1964) 378 U.S. 368 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 ].) We expect that the trial court will follow the correct procedure on retrial. 6. | 2 | 1969–1988 |
In Re Ibarra
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569, 585 .) The majority in Ibarra held that a signed waiver form which confirms receipt of counsel’s advice on the pertinent issues eliminates the need for “ritual recitation” from a judge and satisfies “the dictates of Boykin and Tahl.” ( Ibarra, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 285–286.) It is the majority opinion of our Supreme Court that we are bound by. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569, 585 .) The majority in Ibarra held that a signed waiver form which confirms receipt of counsel’s advice on the pertinent issues eliminates the need for “ritual recitation” from a judge and satisfies “the dictates of Boykin and Tahl.” ( Ibarra, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 285–286.) It is the majority opinion of our Supreme Court that we are bound by. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2026(See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) Last, defendant relies on People v. Kinnear (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1116 to argue the court was required to advise her of her right to a jury trial and the penal consequences of the aggravating factor. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Weaver
green
1 sentence2024(Weaver, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1074 .) In other words, while a signed waiver may be helpful to a reviewing court, Weaver does not hold that a signed waiver is required in every case to document a jury waiver. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Jesusa
green
1 sentence2022(Christopher L., at pp. 1184–1185, citing In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 621–622.) These errors, the Court of Appeal concluded, “affected the due process afforded Father at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing in that they denied him counsel at that hearing.” (Christopher L., at p. 1177.) Although the Court of Appeal agreed with Father that these errors violated due process, it held that automatic reversal was not warranted. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Clarke v. Akel (In re Clarke)
green
1 sentence2021In re Marriage of Clarke & Akel (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 914 , (Clarke) is instructive. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bobby v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2019"A plurality of the Court reasoned that '[u]pon hearing warnings only in the aftermath of interrogation and just after making a confession, a suspect would hardly think he had a genuine right to remain silent, let alone persist in so believing once the police began to lead him over the same ground again.' [Citation.] JUSTICE KENNEDY concurred in the judgment, noting he 'would apply a narrower test applicable only in the infrequent case ... in which the two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.' " ( Bobby v. Dixon (2011) 565 U.S. 23 , 30-31, 2019"A plurality of the Court reasoned that '[u]pon hearing warnings only in the aftermath of interrogation and just after making a confession, a suspect would hardly think he had a genuine right to remain silent, let alone persist in so believing once the police began to lead him over the same ground again.' [Citation.] JUSTICE KENNEDY concurred in the judgment, noting he 'would apply a narrower test applicable only in the infrequent case ... in which the two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.' " ( Bobby v. Dixon (2011) 565 U.S. 23 , 30-31, | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Chavez v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2016Indeed, Justice Thomas explicitly recognized the penalty case exception line of cases, describing that principle as “well established.” ( Chavez, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 767-768.) Further, the opinion acknowledged that a signed immunity waiver precludes the signatory from objecting on Fifth Amendment grounds to the subsequent use of the statements in a criminal case, even if the statements were compelled, and “[a] waiver of immunity is therefore a prospective waiver of the core self-incrimination right in any subsequent criminal proceeding .…” (Chavez, at p. 768, fn. 2.) Chavez recognized the c 2016Indeed, Justice Thomas explicitly recognized the penalty case exception line of cases, describing that principle as “well established.” ( Chavez, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 767-768.) Further, the opinion acknowledged that a signed immunity waiver precludes the signatory from objecting on Fifth Amendment grounds to the subsequent use of the statements in a criminal case, even if the statements were compelled, and “[a] waiver of immunity is therefore a prospective waiver of the core self-incrimination right in any subsequent criminal proceeding .…” (Chavez, at p. 768, fn. 2.) Chavez recognized the c | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Patane
green
1 sentence2016Indeed, Justice Thomas explicitly recognized the penalty case exception line of cases, describing that principle as “well established.” ( Chavez, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 767-768.) Further, the opinion acknowledged that a signed immunity waiver precludes the signatory from objecting on Fifth Amendment grounds to the subsequent use of the statements in a criminal case, even if the statements were compelled, and “[a] waiver of immunity is therefore a prospective waiver of the core self-incrimination right in any subsequent criminal proceeding .…” (Chavez, at p. 768, fn. 2.) Chavez recognized the c | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Michigan v. Tucker
green
1 sentence2016Indeed, Justice Thomas explicitly recognized the penalty case exception line of cases, describing that principle as “well established.” ( Chavez, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 767-768.) Further, the opinion acknowledged that a signed immunity waiver precludes the signatory from objecting on Fifth Amendment grounds to the subsequent use of the statements in a criminal case, even if the statements were compelled, and “[a] waiver of immunity is therefore a prospective waiver of the core self-incrimination right in any subsequent criminal proceeding .…” (Chavez, at p. 768, fn. 2.) Chavez recognized the c | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Beagle
green
1 sentence2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Diaz
green
1 sentence2015She relies on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 (abrogated on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 ), which states that “evidence of oral admissions must be viewed with caution.” (Id. at p. 455 [holding that trial court’s failure to give jury instruction to regard defendant’s unrecorded statements with caution was harmless error].) However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts have stated that it is not necessary for Miranda warnings or waivers to be recorded or contemporaneously memorialized to be valid. (5 Witkin & Epstein, supra, Criminal Trial, § 157 at p. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Barry W.
green
2 sentences2002We do not agree with respondent that the mother's attorney "need[ed] to file an Order to Produce if indeed he wanted the mother to be produced." Given the "significant interests of the parent at stake" at a section 366.26 hearing, "it is reasonable to require the [juvenile] court to arrange for the incarcerated parent's attendance if the parent manifests that intent." ( In re Barry W. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 358, 368 , 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 .) Respondent argues that because Penal Code section 2625 provides that the hearing can proceed if "the prisoner or the prisoner's attorney" is present, the pre 2002We do not agree with respondent that the mother's attorney "need[ed] to file an Order to Produce if indeed he wanted the mother to be produced." Given the "significant interests of the parent at stake" at a section 366.26 hearing, "it is reasonable to require the [juvenile] court to arrange for the incarcerated parent's attendance if the parent manifests that intent." ( In re Barry W. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 358, 368 , 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 .) Respondent argues that because Penal Code section 2625 provides that the hearing can proceed if "the prisoner or the prisoner's attorney" is present, the pre | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Byrd
green
2 sentences1978In People v. Byrd (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 941 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 777 ] the court rejected an attack upon the validity of the release and held that it was sufficient to authorize a search without a warrant. 1978In People v. Byrd (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 941 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 777 ] the court rejected an attack upon the validity of the release and held that it was sufficient to authorize a search without a warrant. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Watts
green
1 sentence1978Ballard, however, argues that authority for his position that a factual basis determination is a prerequisite for a valid waiver is demonstrated by People v. Watts, supra, 67 Cal.App.3d 173 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.