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.
15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Connorgreen2 sentences1962(In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; People v. Chesser, supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 .) Whether a waiver in a particular case meets the standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 1962(In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; People v. Chesser, supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 .) Whether a waiver in a particular case meets the standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Loignongreen2 sentences1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d | 3 | 3 |
Addison Insurance v. Faygreen2 sentences2024Co. v. Fay (2009) 232 Ill.2d 446, 461 [ 905 N.E.2d 747, 756 ]), we hold that, to be a single occurrence, the cause of loss must “be so closely linked in time and space as to be deemed by the average person as a single event.” (Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1986) 210 N.J.Super. 67, 69 [ 509 A.2d 220, 221 ].) This analysis must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis (Addison, supra, 905 N.E.2d at p. 756 ; Doria, supra, 509 A.2d at p. 224 ), but we are satisfied that what happened in this case meets the test, given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the ev 2024Co. v. Fay (2009) 232 Ill.2d 446, 461 [ 905 N.E.2d 747, 756 ]), we hold that, to be a single occurrence, the cause of loss must “be so closely linked in time and space as to be deemed by the average person as a single event.” (Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1986) 210 N.J.Super. 67, 69 [ 509 A.2d 220, 221 ].) This analysis must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis (Addison, supra, 905 N.E.2d at p. 756 ; Doria, supra, 509 A.2d at p. 224 ), but we are satisfied that what happened in this case meets the test, given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the ev | 2 | 2 |
Doria v. Ins. Co. of North Americagreen2 sentences2024Co. v. Fay (2009) 232 Ill.2d 446, 461 [ 905 N.E.2d 747, 756 ]), we hold that, to be a single occurrence, the cause of loss must “be so closely linked in time and space as to be deemed by the average person as a single event.” (Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1986) 210 N.J.Super. 67, 69 [ 509 A.2d 220, 221 ].) This analysis must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis (Addison, supra, 905 N.E.2d at p. 756 ; Doria, supra, 509 A.2d at p. 224 ), but we are satisfied that what happened in this case meets the test, given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the ev 2024Co. v. Fay (2009) 232 Ill.2d 446, 461 [ 905 N.E.2d 747, 756 ]), we hold that, to be a single occurrence, the cause of loss must “be so closely linked in time and space as to be deemed by the average person as a single event.” (Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1986) 210 N.J.Super. 67, 69 [ 509 A.2d 220, 221 ].) This analysis must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis (Addison, supra, 905 N.E.2d at p. 756 ; Doria, supra, 509 A.2d at p. 224 ), but we are satisfied that what happened in this case meets the test, given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the ev | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences1988(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ], quoting from Jackson v. Virginia [1979] 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ], italics original.)” (People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 750 P.2d 1342 ].) The evidence in this case meets this test. 1988(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ], quoting from Jackson v. Virginia [1979] 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ], italics original.)” (People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 750 P.2d 1342 ].) The evidence in this case meets this test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1988(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ], quoting from Jackson v. Virginia [1979] 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ], italics original.)” (People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 750 P.2d 1342 ].) The evidence in this case meets this test. 1988(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ], quoting from Jackson v. Virginia [1979] 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ], italics original.)” (People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 750 P.2d 1342 ].) The evidence in this case meets this test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lucerogreen2 sentences1988(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ], quoting from Jackson v. Virginia [1979] 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ], italics original.)” (People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 750 P.2d 1342 ].) The evidence in this case meets this test. 1988(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ], quoting from Jackson v. Virginia [1979] 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ], italics original.)” (People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1020 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 750 P.2d 1342 ].) The evidence in this case meets this test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. O'Wardgreen2 sentences1962(People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 412, 418 [ 325 P.2d 541 .) ” (People v. O’Ward, 168 Cal.App.2d 127, 131 [ 335 P.2d 762 ].) The conviction at bar is defendant’s second within a year. 1962(People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 412, 418 [ 325 P.2d 541 .) ” (People v. O’Ward, 168 Cal.App.2d 127, 131 [ 335 P.2d 762 ].) The conviction at bar is defendant’s second within a year. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Kaisergreen2 sentences1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d | 1 | 1 |
Union Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1959In cases such as this the question is whether or not there is such work connection between the job and the injury as to satisfy the formula “arising out of and in the course of employment.” This case meets the test as to “course of employment,” for “When an employee is required to live on the premises, either by his contract of employment or by the nature of the employment, and is continuously on call (whether or not actually on duty), the entire period of his presence on the premises pursuant to this requirement is deemed included in the course of employment.” (Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation 1959In cases such as this the question is whether or not there is such work connection between the job and the injury as to satisfy the formula “arising out of and in the course of employment.” This case meets the test as to “course of employment,” for “When an employee is required to live on the premises, either by his contract of employment or by the nature of the employment, and is continuously on call (whether or not actually on duty), the entire period of his presence on the premises pursuant to this requirement is deemed included in the course of employment.” (Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation | 1 | 1 |
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1959Exch. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 27 Cal.2d 813, 816 [ 167 P.2d 705 ].) It is a fair inference from the contract requirements and the geographical conditions of the employment that de Turbiville was required to live on the premises. 1959Exch. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 27 Cal.2d 813, 816 [ 167 P.2d 705 ].) It is a fair inference from the contract requirements and the geographical conditions of the employment that de Turbiville was required to live on the premises. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rogersgreen2 sentences1958(People v. Rogers, 150 Cal.App.2d 403, 416 [ 309 P.2d 949 ].) In the instant ease, defendant had been an accountant. 1958(People v. Rogers, 150 Cal.App.2d 403, 416 [ 309 P.2d 949 ].) In the instant ease, defendant had been an accountant. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Jinglesgreen2 sentences1958(In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 709 [ 108 P.2d 10 ].) The waiver, however, to be effective must be made “competently, intelligently, and completely.” (In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 498 [ 165 P.2d 12 ].) Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 1958(In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 709 [ 108 P.2d 10 ].) The waiver, however, to be effective must be made “competently, intelligently, and completely.” (In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496, 498 [ 165 P.2d 12 ].) Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Chesser
green
2 sentences1962(In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; People v. Chesser, supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 .) Whether a waiver in a particular case meets the standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 1959(In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ] ; People v. Chesser, supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 822 .) Whether a waiver in a particular case meets the standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. | 2 | 1959–1962 |
San Francisco Housing Authority v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNAT. UNION, LOCAL 790
green
1 sentence2024Union, Local 790 (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 933, 943 .) “ ‘[A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his [or her] authority, that a court is convinced he [or she] committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his [or her] decision.’ ” (Advanced Micro Devices, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 378 .) The award in this case meets this standard. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
green
1 sentence2024Union, Local 790 (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 933, 943 .) “ ‘[A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his [or her] authority, that a court is convinced he [or she] committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his [or her] decision.’ ” (Advanced Micro Devices, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 378 .) The award in this case meets this standard. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Snyder v. Michael's Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021First, “[T]he derivative injury rule governs cases in which ‘the third party cause of action [is] derivative of the employee injury in the purest sense: It simply would not have existed in the absence of injury to the employee.’ [Citation.]” (Snyder, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 998 .) Second, “[T]he rule applies when the plaintiff, in order to state a cause of action, must allege injury to another person—the employee.” (Ibid.) Defendants assert the instant case meets this test because Mr. Ek’s illness would not have occurred but for Mrs. Ek contracting the virus at work and transmitting it to him. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2014(College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715 .) This case meets that standard. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Both Premium and Pazderka noted "general contract principles govern section 998 offers as long as those principles `neither conflict with the statute nor defeat its purpose' [citation]....." ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal. App.4th at p. 1496 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 672 , 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 .) Both cases also indicated in dicta that because there had been no showing of fraud or undue influence, no contract principle justified vacating the section 998 settlements. ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 1497 , 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal. App.4th at 2001Both Premium and Pazderka noted "general contract principles govern section 998 offers as long as those principles `neither conflict with the statute nor defeat its purpose' [citation]....." ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal. App.4th at p. 1496 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 672 , 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 .) Both cases also indicated in dicta that because there had been no showing of fraud or undue influence, no contract principle justified vacating the section 998 settlements. ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 1497 , 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal. App.4th at | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Premium Commercial Services Corp. v. National Bank
green
2 sentences2001Both Premium and Pazderka noted "general contract principles govern section 998 offers as long as those principles `neither conflict with the statute nor defeat its purpose' [citation]....." ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal. App.4th at p. 1496 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 672 , 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 .) Both cases also indicated in dicta that because there had been no showing of fraud or undue influence, no contract principle justified vacating the section 998 settlements. ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 1497 , 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal. App.4th at 2001Both Premium and Pazderka noted "general contract principles govern section 998 offers as long as those principles `neither conflict with the statute nor defeat its purpose' [citation]....." ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal. App.4th at p. 1496 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 672 , 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 .) Both cases also indicated in dicta that because there had been no showing of fraud or undue influence, no contract principle justified vacating the section 998 settlements. ( Premium, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 1497 , 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 ; Pazderka, supra, 62 Cal. App.4th at | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Rice
green
1 sentence1990(People v. White, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 83 ; People v. Rice, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at p. 1003 .) There is little doubt that the evidence that was before the magistrate in this case meets the test of reasonable or probable cause. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. White
green
1 sentence1990(People v. White, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 83 ; People v. Rice, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at p. 1003 .) There is little doubt that the evidence that was before the magistrate in this case meets the test of reasonable or probable cause. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Pope
green
1 sentence1986(See People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 425 .) There was no incompetence of counsel. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
In Re Hallinan
green
2 sentences1972The order states that the false accusation was made “In a loud, disorderly, contemptuous, insolent and rude manner and tone of voice . . . .” Our interpretation of Haltinan is. that a warning is required “When the contempt order is based on statements of an attorney made in open court the language of which is in itself not insolent, contemptuous or disorderly. . . .” (In re Hallinan, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1181 ; italics added.) We must then determine whether the language used in the instant case meets that test. 1972The order states that the false accusation was made "In a loud, disorderly, contemptuous, insolent and rude manner and tone of voice...." Our interpretation of Hallinan is that a warning is required "When the contempt order is based on statements of an attorney made in open court the language of which is in itself not insolent, contemptuous or disorderly. ..." ( In re Hallinan, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1181 ; italics added.) We must then determine whether the language used in the instant case meets that test. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Tomkins v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Powell v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d 1961(See In re Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 710 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ]; see, also, Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 [ 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ]; Tomkins v. State of Missouri, 323 U.S. 485 [ 65 S.Ct. 370 , 89 L.Ed. 407 ]; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 ].)” Whether a waiver in a particular case meets this standard is largely a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (People v. Loignon, 160 Cal.App.2d | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.