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 1 courts 1948–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2016Relevant legal standards " 'The standard applied by a trial court in ruling upon a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1 is the same as the standard applied by an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, that is, "whether from the evidence, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, there is any substantial evidence of the existence of each element of the offense charged." ' [Citation.] 'The purpose of a motion under section 1118.1 is to weed out as 4 He further contends that the trial court's erroneous denial o 2016Relevant legal standards " 'The standard applied by a trial court in ruling upon a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1 is the same as the standard applied by an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, that is, "whether from the evidence, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, there is any substantial evidence of the existence of each element of the offense charged." ' [Citation.] 'The purpose of a motion under section 1118.1 is to weed out as 4 He further contends that the trial court's erroneous denial o | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1028, fn. 19 [requirement of timely objection in trial court applies to a defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation].) There is no merit in Ward's argument that an objection would have been futile based on the state of the law at the time of trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Billettsgreen2 sentences2001(Id. at p. 575.) Subsequent decisions cited Ward, perhaps too broadly, for the proposition that “[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 do not apply to errors alleged to have occurred at sentencing proceedings following the entry of the guilty plea.” (People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; see, e.g., People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 389 , 447 P.2d 629 ]; People v. Billetts (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 302, 307-308 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) Ward’s exception to the reach of section 1237.5 was formalized by the adoption of the second paragraph of rul 2001(Id. at p. 575.) Subsequent decisions cited Ward, perhaps too broadly, for the proposition that “[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 do not apply to errors alleged to have occurred at sentencing proceedings following the entry of the guilty plea.” (People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; see, e.g., People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 389 , 447 P.2d 629 ]; People v. Billetts (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 302, 307-308 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) Ward’s exception to the reach of section 1237.5 was formalized by the adoption of the second paragraph of rul | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pinongreen2 sentences2001(Id. at p. 575.) Subsequent decisions cited Ward, perhaps too broadly, for the proposition that “[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 do not apply to errors alleged to have occurred at sentencing proceedings following the entry of the guilty plea.” (People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; see, e.g., People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 389 , 447 P.2d 629 ]; People v. Billetts (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 302, 307-308 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) Ward’s exception to the reach of section 1237.5 was formalized by the adoption of the second paragraph of rul 2001(Id. at p. 575.) Subsequent decisions cited Ward, perhaps too broadly, for the proposition that “[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 do not apply to errors alleged to have occurred at sentencing proceedings following the entry of the guilty plea.” (People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; see, e.g., People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 389 , 447 P.2d 629 ]; People v. Billetts (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 302, 307-308 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) Ward’s exception to the reach of section 1237.5 was formalized by the adoption of the second paragraph of rul | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kaanehegreen2 sentences2001(See People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 559 P.2d 1028 ].) Lower courts continued to struggle with the question whether an attack purporting to be on the sentence alone actually constituted an attack on the validity of the plea. 2001(See People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 8 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 559 P.2d 1028 ].) Lower courts continued to struggle with the question whether an attack purporting to be on the sentence alone actually constituted an attack on the validity of the plea. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dellesgreen2 sentences2001(Id. at p. 575.) Subsequent decisions cited Ward, perhaps too broadly, for the proposition that “[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 do not apply to errors alleged to have occurred at sentencing proceedings following the entry of the guilty plea.” (People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; see, e.g., People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 389 , 447 P.2d 629 ]; People v. Billetts (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 302, 307-308 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) Ward’s exception to the reach of section 1237.5 was formalized by the adoption of the second paragraph of rul 2001(Id. at p. 575.) Subsequent decisions cited Ward, perhaps too broadly, for the proposition that “[t]he requirements of section 1237.5 do not apply to errors alleged to have occurred at sentencing proceedings following the entry of the guilty plea.” (People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; see, e.g., People v. Delles (1968) 69 Cal.2d 906, 909-910 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 389 , 447 P.2d 629 ]; People v. Billetts (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 302, 307-308 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) Ward’s exception to the reach of section 1237.5 was formalized by the adoption of the second paragraph of rul | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Aufmuthgreen2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Lucasgreen2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1 |
Benavides v. Benavidesgreen2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Mulherngreen2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Sullivangreen2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Janssengreen2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chewgreen2 sentences1975Ribero cannot be read as holding that section 1237.5 applies to appeals from post-judgment coram nobis proceedings. 4 People v. Chew (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 254, 257 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 83 ], contains language discussing the Ribero opinion in relation to a coram nobis proceeding, but the Chew court did not have before it the issue presented here. 1975Ribero cannot be read as holding that section 1237.5 applies to appeals from post-judgment coram nobis proceedings. 4 People v. Chew (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 254, 257 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 83 ], contains language discussing the Ribero opinion in relation to a coram nobis proceeding, but the Chew court did not have before it the issue presented here. | 1 | 1 |
| Guardianship of Di Carlogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Below, however, Kasparian urged the trial court to apply the Ward test, noting Oman concluded that test applies to section 204, another statute governing the timing of the payment of wages. ( Oman, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 776, 778.) Assuming, without deciding, the test articulated in Ward would apply to Kasparian’s eighth cause of action based on section 203, his claim would fail for the same reasons his claims based on section 226 fail. 2023Below, however, Kasparian urged the trial court to apply the Ward test, noting Oman concluded that test applies to section 204, another statute governing the timing of the payment of wages. ( Oman, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 776, 778.) Assuming, without deciding, the test articulated in Ward would apply to Kasparian’s eighth cause of action based on section 203, his claim would fail for the same reasons his claims based on section 226 fail. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Charles Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021(See Ward II, supra, 986 F.3d 1234 ; Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 3 F.4th 1127 (Bernstein).) 11 Because a pay-period-by-pay-period examination is not required, Alaska’s request to conduct additional discovery on where flight attendants work each pay period is moot. 13 that Alaska did not assert this argument as a defense in the trial court and is barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. 2021(See Ward II, supra, 986 F.3d 1234 ; Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 3 F.4th 1127 (Bernstein).) 11 Because a pay-period-by-pay-period examination is not required, Alaska’s request to conduct additional discovery on where flight attendants work each pay period is moot. 13 that Alaska did not assert this argument as a defense in the trial court and is barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2020“Because the evidence was material, probative, and admitted under Evidence Code section 1101[, subdivision] (b) on the legitimate issue of intent, defendant’s due process right to a fair trial was not transgressed by the admission of such evidence.” (Rogers, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 332 .) II. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ensworth v. Mullvain
green
1 sentence2016He was, in the words of the law, given a “full opportunity to present his . . . case.” (Ensworth v. Mullvain (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1110 .) Ward’s final procedural claim, that somehow the cross-complaint was inadequate, is equally futile. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2014Ward contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for assault; (2) the absence of evidentiary support for the assault convictions undermines the burglary conviction; (3) the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his prior conviction for assaulting Buganan; (4) the court abused its discretion by denying his request to have Buganan's ex- boyfriend testify; (5) the court's denial of his motion to dismiss a prior strike conviction allegation under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) was an abuse of discretion; (6) the court erred | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2013In Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 59 , the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause prohibits admission of "testimonial statements" from witnesses who do not testify at trial unless the declarant is unavailable, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Thompson v. Missouri
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Ward, supra, 50 Cal.2d at p. 709 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 640-641 .) The Ward court found the most applicable case was Thompson v. Missouri (1898) 171 U.S. 380 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2013The first sentence of the information which alleged that Ward murdered K. "unlawfully, and with malice aforethought" was amended to delete the "with malice aforethought" language so that it read that Ward murdered K. "unlawfully . . . while the said defendant was engaged in the commission of the crime of forcible sexual penetration (rape by instrument), a felony in violation of Penal Code section 289." The separately alleged section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17) special circumstance remained in the information. 13 In People v. Anderson (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 430 (Anderson), the defendant was char | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Morse
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Ward, supra, 50 Cal.2d at p. 709 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 640-641 .) The Ward court found the most applicable case was Thompson v. Missouri (1898) 171 U.S. 380 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Ralph International Thomas
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 520 .) We address the merits because he makes the alternate argument that "failure to object" constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Ward
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Ward, supra, 50 Cal.2d at p. 709 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 640-641 .) The Ward court found the most applicable case was Thompson v. Missouri (1898) 171 U.S. 380 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Maury
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 394 .) Defense counsel’s acquiescence in the instruction that the trial court gave and counsel’s failure to propose a limiting instruction forfeits Ward’s claim of error on appeal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Berry v. Chaplin
green
1 sentence1993(Ibid.) The essential difference between a general guardian and a guardian ad litem is that the former is usually appointed to “take care of the person or property of a minor, not for the purpose of prosecuting a lawsuit” (D.G. v. Superior Court, supra, 100 Cal.App.3d at p. 546), while a guardian ad litem is appointed specifically to “prosecute or defend” a suit, and may be appointed even though there is a general guardian. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleaditig, § 65, pp. 102-103; Berry v. Chaplin (1946) 74 *965 Cal.App.2d 652, 658 [ 169 P.2d 442 ].) Subject to fiduciary duties owe | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Re Marriage of Gaddis
green
1 sentence1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1992–1992 |
In Re the Marriage of Swink
green
2 sentences1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy 1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ferrigno v. Ferrigno
green
1 sentence1992SDVLP is funded from federal and state grants, charitable organizations, independent fund raising and court-awarded attorney fees. (1a) Contrary to Ward's assertion SDVLP is not entitled to receive court-awarded attorney fees because representation is provided to their clientele free of charge, federal and state precedent establishes legal service organizations, such as SDVLP, are entitled to receive attorney fee awards. (2) Under Civil Code [3] section 4370, "[t]he purpose of the award is to provide one of the parties, if necessary, with an amount adequate to properly litigate the controversy | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Guardianship of Vucinich
green
1 sentence1948(Guardianship of Di Carlo, 3 Cal.2d 225, 228 [ 44 P.2d 562 , 99 A.L.R. 990 ]; Guardianship of Vucinich, 3 Cal 2d.235, 240 [ 44 P.2d 567 ]; Guardianship of Cardwell, 55 Cal. 137, 142 .) The order charging the guardian with rent for premises belonging to the ward was not error. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Guardianship of Cardwell green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.