did not commit error (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

did not commit error in California

14 California opinions name it 1 courts 1919–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
City and County of San Francisco v. Daleygreen
calctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014(See City and County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 744 [“[T]he appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy to be employed only in exceptional circumstances.” “‘[R]eceivers are often legal luxuries, frequently representing an extravagant cost’”].) 27 collected funds to Lin, without provision for any of the receiver’s costs or attorney fees.

11
Wood v. Georgiagreen
scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000He relies on Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271 , 101 S.Ct. 1097 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220, 230-231 ( Wood ), which established the rule that "[w]hen a trial court knows or should know that defense counsel has a possible conflict of interest with his [or her] client, it must inquire into the matter ... and act in response to what its inquiry discovers...." ( People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1136 , 282 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 811 P.2d 757 ; see also Garcia v. Bunnell, supra, 33 F.3d at pp. 1199-1200 [information about counsel's new job with district attorney was not actual conflict requiring automat

2000He relies on Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271 , 101 S.Ct. 1097 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220, 230-231 ( Wood ), which established the rule that "[w]hen a trial court knows or should know that defense counsel has a possible conflict of interest with his [or her] client, it must inquire into the matter ... and act in response to what its inquiry discovers...." ( People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1136 , 282 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 811 P.2d 757 ; see also Garcia v. Bunnell, supra, 33 F.3d at pp. 1199-1200 [information about counsel's new job with district attorney was not actual conflict requiring automat

11
People v. Williamsgreen
calctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
2 sentences

1972(See People v. Williams, 17 Cal.App.3d 554, 566 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 234 ].) Defendant Mayolette contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

1972(See People v. Williams, 17 Cal.App.3d 554, 566 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 234 ].) Defendant Mayolette contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

11
People v. Rossgreen
calctapp · 1953 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959(People, v. Ross, 120 Cal.App.2d 882, 887 [ 262 P.2d 343 ] ; People v. Godlewski, 22 Cal.2d 677 [ 140 P.2d 381 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Officer Bishonden to relate his conversations with appellant.

1959(People, v. Ross, 120 Cal.App.2d 882, 887 [ 262 P.2d 343 ] ; People v. Godlewski, 22 Cal.2d 677 [ 140 P.2d 381 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Officer Bishonden to relate his conversations with appellant.

11
People v. Whitegreen
calctapp · 1939 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1958–1958
2 sentences

1958(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. White, 35 Cal.App.2d 61, 69 [ 94 P.2d 617 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Miller to relate his conversation with appellant.

1958(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. White, 35 Cal.App.2d 61, 69 [ 94 P.2d 617 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Miller to relate his conversation with appellant.

11
Estate of Gorchakoffgreen
calctapp · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956
2 sentences

1956Code, § 1120; Estate of Campbell, 175 Cal. 345, 351-352 [ 165 P. 931 ]; Estate of Gorchakoff, 108 Cal.App.2d 44, 46-47 [ 238 P.2d 121 ].) The trial court’s decree, from which this appeal was taken, expressly reserved “jurisdiction to determine at *680 the termination of the intervening Life Estates, whether the amount of the then estate going to Charity is in excess of that permitted by law.” In so decreeing the court did not commit error.

1956Code, § 1120; Estate of Campbell, 175 Cal. 345, 351-352 [ 165 P. 931 ]; Estate of Gorchakoff, 108 Cal.App.2d 44, 46-47 [ 238 P.2d 121 ].) The trial court’s decree, from which this appeal was taken, expressly reserved “jurisdiction to determine at *680 the termination of the intervening Life Estates, whether the amount of the then estate going to Charity is in excess of that permitted by law.” In so decreeing the court did not commit error.

11
In Re Estate of Campbellgreen
cal · 1917 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956
2 sentences

1956Code, § 1120; Estate of Campbell, 175 Cal. 345, 351-352 [ 165 P. 931 ]; Estate of Gorchakoff, 108 Cal.App.2d 44, 46-47 [ 238 P.2d 121 ].) The trial court’s decree, from which this appeal was taken, expressly reserved “jurisdiction to determine at *680 the termination of the intervening Life Estates, whether the amount of the then estate going to Charity is in excess of that permitted by law.” In so decreeing the court did not commit error.

1956Code, § 1120; Estate of Campbell, 175 Cal. 345, 351-352 [ 165 P. 931 ]; Estate of Gorchakoff, 108 Cal.App.2d 44, 46-47 [ 238 P.2d 121 ].) The trial court’s decree, from which this appeal was taken, expressly reserved “jurisdiction to determine at *680 the termination of the intervening Life Estates, whether the amount of the then estate going to Charity is in excess of that permitted by law.” In so decreeing the court did not commit error.

11
Jacoby v. Johnsongreen
calctapp · 1948 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1952
2 sentences

1952(See Jacoby v. Johnson, 84 Cal.App.2d 271, 275 [ 190 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant’s attack on the refusal of the trial court to instruct that under Vehicle Code section 562 plaintiff was under a duty to yield the right of way to defendant because of the former’s crossing outside a legally established crosswalk, is without merit.

1952(See Jacoby v. Johnson, 84 Cal.App.2d 271, 275 [ 190 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant’s attack on the refusal of the trial court to instruct that under Vehicle Code section 562 plaintiff was under a duty to yield the right of way to defendant because of the former’s crossing outside a legally established crosswalk, is without merit.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

CaseCitedYears
The People v. Jacobs green
calctapp · 2013
1 sentence

2023To resolve the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we need not determine whether his counsel’s performance was deficient. “ ‘If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jacobs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 67, 75 .) We find no prejudice.

12023–2023
People v. Jones green
cal · 1991
2 sentences

2000He relies on Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271 , 101 S.Ct. 1097 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220, 230-231 ( Wood ), which established the rule that "[w]hen a trial court knows or should know that defense counsel has a possible conflict of interest with his [or her] client, it must inquire into the matter ... and act in response to what its inquiry discovers...." ( People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1136 , 282 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 811 P.2d 757 ; see also Garcia v. Bunnell, supra, 33 F.3d at pp. 1199-1200 [information about counsel's new job with district attorney was not actual conflict requiring automat

2000He relies on Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271 , 101 S.Ct. 1097 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220, 230-231 ( Wood ), which established the rule that "[w]hen a trial court knows or should know that defense counsel has a possible conflict of interest with his [or her] client, it must inquire into the matter ... and act in response to what its inquiry discovers...." ( People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1136 , 282 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 811 P.2d 757 ; see also Garcia v. Bunnell, supra, 33 F.3d at pp. 1199-1200 [information about counsel's new job with district attorney was not actual conflict requiring automat

12000–2000
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro green
calctapp · 1957
2 sentences

1968Proc., § 462; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1590; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 189 Cal. 417 [ 208 P. 961 ]; San Joaquin Brick Co. v. *871 Mulcahy, 58 Cal.App. 295 [ 208 P. 351 ]; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 154 Cal.App.2d 495 [ 316 P.2d 393 ].) Special Defenses and Unclean Hands The court did not commit error in denying appellants’ request to amend their pleadings by adding as special defenses, estoppel, laches and the statute of limitations.

1968Proc., § 462; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1590; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 189 Cal. 417 [ 208 P. 961 ]; San Joaquin Brick Co. v. *871 Mulcahy, 58 Cal.App. 295 [ 208 P. 351 ]; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 154 Cal.App.2d 495 [ 316 P.2d 393 ].) Special Defenses and Unclean Hands The court did not commit error in denying appellants’ request to amend their pleadings by adding as special defenses, estoppel, laches and the statute of limitations.

11968–1968
San Joaquin Brick Co. v. Mulcahy neutral
calctapp · 1922
2 sentences

1968Proc., § 462; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1590; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 189 Cal. 417 [ 208 P. 961 ]; San Joaquin Brick Co. v. *871 Mulcahy, 58 Cal.App. 295 [ 208 P. 351 ]; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 154 Cal.App.2d 495 [ 316 P.2d 393 ].) Special Defenses and Unclean Hands The court did not commit error in denying appellants’ request to amend their pleadings by adding as special defenses, estoppel, laches and the statute of limitations.

1968Proc., § 462; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1590; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 189 Cal. 417 [ 208 P. 961 ]; San Joaquin Brick Co. v. *871 Mulcahy, 58 Cal.App. 295 [ 208 P. 351 ]; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 154 Cal.App.2d 495 [ 316 P.2d 393 ].) Special Defenses and Unclean Hands The court did not commit error in denying appellants’ request to amend their pleadings by adding as special defenses, estoppel, laches and the statute of limitations.

11968–1968
Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees green
cal · 1922
2 sentences

1968Proc., § 462; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1590; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 189 Cal. 417 [ 208 P. 961 ]; San Joaquin Brick Co. v. *871 Mulcahy, 58 Cal.App. 295 [ 208 P. 351 ]; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 154 Cal.App.2d 495 [ 316 P.2d 393 ].) Special Defenses and Unclean Hands The court did not commit error in denying appellants’ request to amend their pleadings by adding as special defenses, estoppel, laches and the statute of limitations.

1968Proc., § 462; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) p. 1590; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 189 Cal. 417 [ 208 P. 961 ]; San Joaquin Brick Co. v. *871 Mulcahy, 58 Cal.App. 295 [ 208 P. 351 ]; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 154 Cal.App.2d 495 [ 316 P.2d 393 ].) Special Defenses and Unclean Hands The court did not commit error in denying appellants’ request to amend their pleadings by adding as special defenses, estoppel, laches and the statute of limitations.

11968–1968
People v. Godlewski green
cal · 1943
2 sentences

1959(People, v. Ross, 120 Cal.App.2d 882, 887 [ 262 P.2d 343 ] ; People v. Godlewski, 22 Cal.2d 677 [ 140 P.2d 381 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Officer Bishonden to relate his conversations with appellant.

1959(People, v. Ross, 120 Cal.App.2d 882, 887 [ 262 P.2d 343 ] ; People v. Godlewski, 22 Cal.2d 677 [ 140 P.2d 381 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Officer Bishonden to relate his conversations with appellant.

11959–1959
People v. Newland green
cal · 1940
2 sentences

1958(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. White, 35 Cal.App.2d 61, 69 [ 94 P.2d 617 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Miller to relate his conversation with appellant.

1958(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. White, 35 Cal.App.2d 61, 69 [ 94 P.2d 617 ].) The court did not commit error in permitting Miller to relate his conversation with appellant.

11958–1958
People v. Lim Foon green
· 1915
2 sentences

1951(People v. Lim Foon, 29 Cal.App. 270 [ 155 P. 477 ].) Defendant complains that the court on its own motion should have instructed the jury not to consider the cross-examination of defendant with reference to his parole violations and further should have instructed with reference to the importance of the identification of the defendant and relative to the use of defendant’s car in the robbery.

1951(People v. Lim Foon, 29 Cal.App. 270 [ 155 P. 477 ].) Defendant complains that the court on its own motion should have instructed the jury not to consider the cross-examination of defendant with reference to his parole violations and further should have instructed with reference to the importance of the identification of the defendant and relative to the use of defendant’s car in the robbery.

11951–1951
People v. Wilson green
calctapp · 1929
2 sentences

1931(People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528 [ 251 Pac. 941 ]; People v. Powell, 83 Cal. App. 62 [ 256 Pac. 561 ]; People v. Wilson, 101 Cal. App. 376 [ 281 Pac. 700 ].) *573 The court did not commit error in pronouncing judgment, since the defendant, although he objected thereto, did not ask for a new trial; and further, that even if the court did err, the error, in view of the undoubted guilt of the defendant, as shown by the record in this case, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

1931(People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528 [ 251 Pac. 941 ]; People v. Powell, 83 Cal. App. 62 [ 256 Pac. 561 ]; People v. Wilson, 101 Cal. App. 376 [ 281 Pac. 700 ].) *573 The court did not commit error in pronouncing judgment, since the defendant, although he objected thereto, did not ask for a new trial; and further, that even if the court did err, the error, in view of the undoubted guilt of the defendant, as shown by the record in this case, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

11931–1931
People v. Ramos green
calctapp · 1926
2 sentences

1931(People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528 [ 251 Pac. 941 ]; People v. Powell, 83 Cal. App. 62 [ 256 Pac. 561 ]; People v. Wilson, 101 Cal. App. 376 [ 281 Pac. 700 ].) *573 The court did not commit error in pronouncing judgment, since the defendant, although he objected thereto, did not ask for a new trial; and further, that even if the court did err, the error, in view of the undoubted guilt of the defendant, as shown by the record in this case, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

1931(People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528 [ 251 Pac. 941 ]; People v. Powell, 83 Cal. App. 62 [ 256 Pac. 561 ]; People v. Wilson, 101 Cal. App. 376 [ 281 Pac. 700 ].) *573 The court did not commit error in pronouncing judgment, since the defendant, although he objected thereto, did not ask for a new trial; and further, that even if the court did err, the error, in view of the undoubted guilt of the defendant, as shown by the record in this case, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

11931–1931
People v. Powell green
calctapp · 1927
2 sentences

1931(People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528 [ 251 Pac. 941 ]; People v. Powell, 83 Cal. App. 62 [ 256 Pac. 561 ]; People v. Wilson, 101 Cal. App. 376 [ 281 Pac. 700 ].) *573 The court did not commit error in pronouncing judgment, since the defendant, although he objected thereto, did not ask for a new trial; and further, that even if the court did err, the error, in view of the undoubted guilt of the defendant, as shown by the record in this case, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

1931(People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528 [ 251 Pac. 941 ]; People v. Powell, 83 Cal. App. 62 [ 256 Pac. 561 ]; People v. Wilson, 101 Cal. App. 376 [ 281 Pac. 700 ].) *573 The court did not commit error in pronouncing judgment, since the defendant, although he objected thereto, did not ask for a new trial; and further, that even if the court did err, the error, in view of the undoubted guilt of the defendant, as shown by the record in this case, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

11931–1931
Marchi v. People neutral
colo · 1924
2 sentences

1929(Marchi v. People, 75 Colo. 254 [ 224 Pac. 1053 ]; Kelly v. People, 115 Ill. 583 [ 56 Am.

1929(Marchi v. People, 75 Colo. 254 [ 224 Pac. 1053 ]; Kelly v. People, 115 Ill. 583 [ 56 Am.

11929–1929
Kelly v. People green
ill · 1886
1 sentence

1929(Marchi v. People, 75 Colo. 254 [ 224 Pac. 1053 ]; Kelly v. People, 115 Ill. 583 [ 56 Am.

11929–1929
Robinson v. Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad green
· 1884
2 sentences

1919Co., 65 Cal. 263 , [ 3 Pac. 878 ].) [6] The court did not commit error in permitting the plaintiff to put in evidence the answers made ¡by defendant Steinbeck on the taking of his deposition prior to his having corrected the same.

1919Co., 65 Cal. 263 , [ 3 Pac. 878 ].) [6] The court did not commit error in permitting the plaintiff to put in evidence the answers made ¡by defendant Steinbeck on the taking of his deposition prior to his having corrected the same.

11919–1919
People v. Webber neutral
calctapp · 1915
2 sentences

1919(People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358 , [ 117 Pac. 176 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal. App. 451 , [ 141 Pac. 950 ]; People v. Webber, 26 Cal. App. 413 , [ 147 Pac. 102 ]; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1023.) The court did not commit error in striking out the testimony of Mr. Beebe, the witness called for impeachment.

1919(People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358 , [ 117 Pac. 176 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal. App. 451 , [ 141 Pac. 950 ]; People v. Webber, 26 Cal. App. 413 , [ 147 Pac. 102 ]; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1023.) The court did not commit error in striking out the testimony of Mr. Beebe, the witness called for impeachment.

11919–1919
People v. Ho Kim You green
· 1914
2 sentences

1919(People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358 , [ 117 Pac. 176 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal. App. 451 , [ 141 Pac. 950 ]; People v. Webber, 26 Cal. App. 413 , [ 147 Pac. 102 ]; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1023.) The court did not commit error in striking out the testimony of Mr. Beebe, the witness called for impeachment.

1919(People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358 , [ 117 Pac. 176 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal. App. 451 , [ 141 Pac. 950 ]; People v. Webber, 26 Cal. App. 413 , [ 147 Pac. 102 ]; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1023.) The court did not commit error in striking out the testimony of Mr. Beebe, the witness called for impeachment.

11919–1919
People v. Jones green
cal · 1911
2 sentences

1919(People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358 , [ 117 Pac. 176 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal. App. 451 , [ 141 Pac. 950 ]; People v. Webber, 26 Cal. App. 413 , [ 147 Pac. 102 ]; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1023.) The court did not commit error in striking out the testimony of Mr. Beebe, the witness called for impeachment.

1919(People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358 , [ 117 Pac. 176 ]; People v. Ho Kim You, 24 Cal. App. 451 , [ 141 Pac. 950 ]; People v. Webber, 26 Cal. App. 413 , [ 147 Pac. 102 ]; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1023.) The court did not commit error in striking out the testimony of Mr. Beebe, the witness called for impeachment.

11919–1919

Where else courts name it

OK 17 (1916–1983) MO 16 (1878–2019) CA 14 (1919–2023) IN 10 (1917–2013) IL 9 (1907–2023) AL 7 (1917–1978) NY 7 (1990–2026) TX 7 (1922–1974) GA 7 (1906–1979) MT 7 (1922–1987) FL 6 (1953–2002) NC 6 (1968–1985) AR 5 (1912–1980) CT 4 (1976–2021) ME 4 (2003–2019) OH 4 (1951–2026) OR 3 (1923–2021) AZ 2 (1923–1961) ND 2 (1938–1938) KY 2 (1968–1969) WA 2 (1938–1943) VT 2 (1936–1993) PA 2 (1949–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check