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 3 courts 1984–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Donaldson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St 1984In all such cases the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation [citations] takes full effect." (5) Following this initial inquiry, California courts employ a tripartite test derived from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ] to determine the retroactive effect of a decision. [6] Under this test, the court considers three factors: "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new stand | 1 | 2 |
Stovall v. Dennogreen2 sentences1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St 1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St | 1 | 2 |
People v. Kaanehegreen2 sentences1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St 1984In all such cases the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation [citations] takes full effect." (5) Following this initial inquiry, California courts employ a tripartite test derived from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ] to determine the retroactive effect of a decision. [6] Under this test, the court considers three factors: "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new stand | 1 | 2 |
Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmty.green1 sentence2024(See Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 42 F.4th 1013, 1021 [interests identical where party and nonparty seek the same litigation outcome].) Thus, Wynne was required to make a “ ‘compelling showing’ ” to demonstrate inadequate representation.3 (Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 1138, review granted Nov. 29, 2023, S282173.) She failed to do so. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brendlingreen1 sentence2016Rather, the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” ’ [Citations.] ‘[B]ut-for cause, or “causation in the logical sense alone,” [citation] can be too attenuated to justify exclusion . . . .’ [Citations.]” (People v. Brendlin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Brendlin).) In determining whether an intervening circumstance was sufficient to break the causal connec | 1 | 1 |
Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Commissiongreen1 sentence2009(See Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 402, 415-417 [ 711 Cal.Rptr.3d 522 ] (Security National Guaranty).) 6 “In deciding whether to entertain a claim that an agency lacks jurisdiction before the agency proceedings have run their course, a court considers three factors; the injury or burden that exhaustion will impose, the strength of the legal argument that the agency lacks jurisdiction, and the extent to which administrative expertise may aid in resolving the jurisdictional issue.” (Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1082 ; see Security | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciagreen2 sentences1985“Under [that] test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 548 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ].) The factors, however, are not of equal weight. 1985“Under [that] test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 548 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ].) The factors, however, are not of equal weight. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Johnsongreen2 sentences1984In all such cases the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation [citations] takes full effect." (5) Following this initial inquiry, California courts employ a tripartite test derived from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ] to determine the retroactive effect of a decision. [6] Under this test, the court considers three factors: "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new stand 1984In all such cases the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation [citations] takes full effect." (5) Following this initial inquiry, California courts employ a tripartite test derived from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ] to determine the retroactive effect of a decision. [6] Under this test, the court considers three factors: "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new stand | 1 | 1 |
Pryor v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences1984In all such cases the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation [citations] takes full effect." (5) Following this initial inquiry, California courts employ a tripartite test derived from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ] to determine the retroactive effect of a decision. [6] Under this test, the court considers three factors: "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new stand 1984In all such cases the ordinary assumption of retrospective operation [citations] takes full effect." (5) Following this initial inquiry, California courts employ a tripartite test derived from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ] to determine the retroactive effect of a decision. [6] Under this test, the court considers three factors: "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new stand | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences2025Citing Coachella, supra, 35 Cal.4th 1072 , Plaintiffs argue they fall within an exception to the exhaustion requirement because Cal/OSHA did not have jurisdiction to issue the citations. “[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies may be excused when a party claims that ‘the agency lacks authority, statutory or otherwise, to resolve the underlying dispute between the parties.’” (Id. at pp. 1081–1082.) “In deciding whether to entertain a claim that an agency lacks jurisdiction before the agency proceedings have run their course, a court considers three factors: the injury or burden that exhaustion 2023Rather, “In deciding whether to entertain a claim that an agency lacks jurisdiction before the agency proceedings have run their course, a court considers three factors: the injury or burden that exhaustion will impose, the strength of the legal argument that the agency lacks jurisdiction, and the extent to which administrative 10 expertise may aid in resolving the jurisdictional issue.” (Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1082 .) Applying the Coachella Valley factors, we conclude the exhaustion requirement was excused. | 5 | 2008–2025 |
Whitlock v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC
green
2 sentences2026(Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 160 .) “‘[A] trial court has 4 “An order denying a motion for a new trial is not appealable; however, it is reviewable on appeal from the underlying judgment.” (Audish v. Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 740 , 746, fn. 2.) 7 broad discretion in ruling on each of these issues, and its rulings will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.’” (Ibid.) Plaintiffs rely on a single declaration from the presiding juror. 2026(Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 160 .) There are, however, limitations on the admissibility of declarations from jurors regarding conduct that allegedly occurred during deliberations. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Public Employment Relations Board v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2015But when the administrative proceeding involves no unusual expense and when the agency’s specialized understanding may contribute to a proper determination, a requirement of exhaustion may be desirable.’ ” (Public Employment, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1829 .) Thus, “[i]n deciding whether to entertain a claim that an agency lacks jurisdiction before the agency proceedings have run their course, a court considers three factors: the injury or burden that exhaustion will impose, the strength of the legal argument that the agency lacks jurisdiction, and the extent to which administrative expertis 2005(Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1830 .) Here, in regard to the first factor, the District did not show that it would suffer any unusual or irreparable injury if it were required to litigate the CSEA’s unfair practices charge to completion before obtaining a judicial resolution of the jurisdictional limitations issues. | 2 | 2005–2015 |
Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2026(Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 818 .) When a party moves for a new trial based on juror misconduct, the court considers three factors: First, whether the evidence of claimed misconduct is admissible; second, whether the facts establish misconduct; and third, whether the misconduct was prejudicial. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance
green
1 sentence2024Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 6, 15 ), and the parties fully briefed the third factor in the trial court and on appeal. 9 To determine whether an interest was adequately represented, the court considers three factors: “ ‘(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect. [Citation.] [¶] The most important factor in determining | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. King
green
1 sentence2013(People v. King (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 567, 572 .) The court considers three factors in determining whether a 15 defendant’s punishment violates the state constitution. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Lynch
red
2 sentences2013(In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424 ; People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 487-488 .) First, the court examines the “nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society.” (In re Lynch, supra, at p. 425 .) Second, the court compares the challenged punishment with punishments for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. 2013(In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424 ; People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 487-488 .) First, the court examines the “nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society.” (In re Lynch, supra, at p. 425 .) Second, the court compares the challenged punishment with punishments for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Dillon
green
1 sentence2013(In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424 ; People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 487-488 .) First, the court examines the “nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society.” (In re Lynch, supra, at p. 425 .) Second, the court compares the challenged punishment with punishments for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Brown
green
2 sentences1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St 1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Willett
green
1 sentence1996(Ibid.) 7 “Once resolved that a decision establishes a new standard, the California courts define the retroactive effect of that decision under the tripartite test based upon Stovall v. Demo [(1967)] 388 U.S. 293 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 ].” (Donaldson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 38 .) “Under this test, the court considers three factors: ‘(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application of the new standards.’ (St | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Ruster
green
2 sentences1996(Id., at pp. 665, 667.) People v. Ruster [(1974)] 40 Cal.App.3d 865 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 572 ] held that although the probation officer did not report the defendant’s imprisonment to the court within 30 days of being notified, the defendant’s notification did not comply with section 1203.2a requirements which would allow the court to impose sentence on the defendant. 1996(Id., at pp. 665, 667.) People v. Ruster [(1974)] 40 Cal.App.3d 865 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 572 ] held that although the probation officer did not report the defendant’s imprisonment to the court within 30 days of being notified, the defendant’s notification did not comply with section 1203.2a requirements which would allow the court to impose sentence on the defendant. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Guerra
green
1 sentence1985When the purpose of the new standard clearly favors retroactivity or prospectivity, it will be *47 given effect without regard to the weight of the other factors. ( People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.3d 385 at p. 402 .) (3) "Perhaps the most consistent application of this principle has been in cases in which the primary purpose of the new rule is to promote reliable determinations of guilt or innocence. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.