14 California opinions name it 1 courts 1934–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd.green2 sentences2026(See Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 [appellate court has no obligation to “develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) Consequently, she failed to raise a claim of reversible error. 2025(See Dills v. Redwoods Association, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 [appellate court has no obligation to “develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) Consequently, mother failed to raise a claim of reversible error. | 9 | 9 |
In Re Sade C.green2 sentences2021(In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 [appellate court may deem an appeal abandoned and dismiss it based on appellant’s failure raise a claim of reversible error].) 2. 2015(In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 .) Soohoo has also moved to dismiss Capstone’s appeal on the same grounds. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Peetegreen2 sentences1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. 1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Correagreen2 sentences1934(People v. Correa, 44 Cal. App. 634, 642 [ 186 Pac. 1055 ]; People v. Frank, 75 Cal. App. 74 [ 241 Pac. 924 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 502, sec. 516; 16 Cor. 1934(People v. Correa, 44 Cal. App. 634, 642 [ 186 Pac. 1055 ]; People v. Frank, 75 Cal. App. 74 [ 241 Pac. 924 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 502, sec. 516; 16 Cor. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sampsellgreen2 sentences1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. 1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yeagergreen2 sentences1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. 1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. | 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. Collins
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 384-385 .) The rationale stated in Luce and Collins applies here. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Carmen
green
2 sentences1962It is true that: “A defendant is entitled to instructions on his theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence no matter how weak such evidence may be and, even though it may not be of a character to inspire belief and however incredible the evidence may be, the defendant is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true (People v. Carmen, 36 Cal.2d 768 [ 228 P.2d 281 ]; People v. Carnine, 41 Cal.2d 384 [ 260 P.2d 16 ]).” (Fricke, California Criminal Procedure (5th ed. 1959), Instructions, p. 317.) In 48 California Jurisprudence 2d, Trial, section 467, page 479 1962It is true that: “A defendant is entitled to instructions on his theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence no matter how weak such evidence may be and, even though it may not be of a character to inspire belief and however incredible the evidence may be, the defendant is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true (People v. Carmen, 36 Cal.2d 768 [ 228 P.2d 281 ]; People v. Carnine, 41 Cal.2d 384 [ 260 P.2d 16 ]).” (Fricke, California Criminal Procedure (5th ed. 1959), Instructions, p. 317.) In 48 California Jurisprudence 2d, Trial, section 467, page 479 | 1 | 1962–1962 |
People v. Carnine
green
2 sentences1962It is true that: “A defendant is entitled to instructions on his theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence no matter how weak such evidence may be and, even though it may not be of a character to inspire belief and however incredible the evidence may be, the defendant is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true (People v. Carmen, 36 Cal.2d 768 [ 228 P.2d 281 ]; People v. Carnine, 41 Cal.2d 384 [ 260 P.2d 16 ]).” (Fricke, California Criminal Procedure (5th ed. 1959), Instructions, p. 317.) In 48 California Jurisprudence 2d, Trial, section 467, page 479 1962It is true that: “A defendant is entitled to instructions on his theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence no matter how weak such evidence may be and, even though it may not be of a character to inspire belief and however incredible the evidence may be, the defendant is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true (People v. Carmen, 36 Cal.2d 768 [ 228 P.2d 281 ]; People v. Carnine, 41 Cal.2d 384 [ 260 P.2d 16 ]).” (Fricke, California Criminal Procedure (5th ed. 1959), Instructions, p. 317.) In 48 California Jurisprudence 2d, Trial, section 467, page 479 | 1 | 1962–1962 |
People v. Cuff
green
1 sentence1934(People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333, 353 [ 202 Pac. 51 ]; People v. Sampsell, 104 Cal. App. 431, 441 [ 286 Pac. 434 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 486 [ 229 Pac. 40 ]; People v. Cuff, 123 Cal. 589 [ 55 Pac. 407 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 42, sec. 157.) The defendant having previously developed on cross-examination the same statements and having voluntarily admitted at the trial that he had previously made these false statements, waived his right to object to this evidence and may not predicate a claim of reversible error thereon, for the reason that it became cumulative and harmless. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
In Re Mullin
neutral
1 sentence1934(People v. Correa, 44 Cal. App. 634, 642 [ 186 Pac. 1055 ]; People v. Frank, 75 Cal. App. 74 [ 241 Pac. 924 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 502, sec. 516; 16 Cor. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
People v. Frank
green
1 sentence1934(People v. Correa, 44 Cal. App. 634, 642 [ 186 Pac. 1055 ]; People v. Frank, 75 Cal. App. 74 [ 241 Pac. 924 ]; 8 Cal. Jur., p. 502, sec. 516; 16 Cor. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.