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.
14 California opinions name it 4 courts 2003–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Troppman v. Valverdegreen2 sentences2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies 2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies | 3 | 4 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies 2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies | 2 | 5 |
People v. Roblesgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is 2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is | 2 | 2 |
People v. Myersgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is 2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is | 2 | 2 |
People v. Masongreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is 2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2015(Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 30 Cal.3d 70, 73, fn. 1 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 566 , 634 P.2d 917 ], italics omitted (Hernandez).) The California Supreme Court has held that “section 23612 applies broadly and generally to ‘those who drive’ — that is, to those who avail themselves of the public streets, roads, and highways to operate motor vehicles in this state.” (Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121, 1139 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 156 P.3d 328 ] (Troppman).) The Legislature adopted the implied consent law in 1966 in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Schmer 2015(Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 30 Cal.3d 70, 73, fn. 1 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 566 , 634 P.2d 917 ], italics omitted (Hernandez).) The California Supreme Court has held that “section 23612 applies broadly and generally to ‘those who drive’ — that is, to those who avail themselves of the public streets, roads, and highways to operate motor vehicles in this state.” (Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121, 1139 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 156 P.3d 328 ] (Troppman).) The Legislature adopted the implied consent law in 1966 in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Schmer | 2 | 2 |
Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies 2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies | 1 | 4 |
Anderson v. Cozensgreen2 sentences2015(Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 30 Cal.3d 70, 73, fn. 1 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 566 , 634 P.2d 917 ], italics omitted (Hernandez).) The California Supreme Court has held that “section 23612 applies broadly and generally to ‘those who drive’ — that is, to those who avail themselves of the public streets, roads, and highways to operate motor vehicles in this state.” (Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121, 1139 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 156 P.3d 328 ] (Troppman).) The Legislature adopted the implied consent law in 1966 in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Schmer 2015(Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 30 Cal.3d 70, 73, fn. 1 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 566 , 634 P.2d 917 ], italics omitted (Hernandez).) The California Supreme Court has held that “section 23612 applies broadly and generally to ‘those who drive’ — that is, to those who avail themselves of the public streets, roads, and highways to operate motor vehicles in this state.” (Troppman v. Valverde (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1121, 1139 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 , 156 P.3d 328 ] (Troppman).) The Legislature adopted the implied consent law in 1966 in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Schmer | 1 | 2 |
Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2016ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSIONS, IN GENERAL California has enacted an implied consent statute providing noncriminal sanctions for an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 8 Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A) provides in part: ‘“A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 2016ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSIONS, IN GENERAL California has enacted an implied consent statute providing noncriminal sanctions for an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 8 Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A) provides in part: ‘“A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section | 1 | 1 |
Daly v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2016ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSIONS, IN GENERAL California has enacted an implied consent statute providing noncriminal sanctions for an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 8 Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A) provides in part: ‘“A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 2016ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSIONS, IN GENERAL California has enacted an implied consent statute providing noncriminal sanctions for an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 8 Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A) provides in part: ‘“A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2014Vehicle Code section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(B) provides “[a] person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood for the purpose of determining the drug content of his of her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section . . . 23152 . . . .” (People v. Harris (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 8 [“To drive a motor vehicle on the highways of this state is a privilege subject to regulation, not a right . . ., and one such regulation is that any person who does so is statutorily ‘deemed to ha | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stanleygreen2 sentences2003(People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Stanley (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1551 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 ].) Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides, “A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. 2003(People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Stanley (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1551 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 ].) Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides, “A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leybagreen2 sentences2003(People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Stanley (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1551 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 ].) Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides, “A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. 2003(People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Stanley (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1551 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 ].) Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides, “A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. | 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. Municipal Court (Gonzales)
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Sudduth (1966) 65 Cal.2d 543, 545-546 ; People v. Municipal Court (Gonzales) (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 114, 119 .) Keukelaar argues there was no substantial evidence that he refused to take the test. 2023(People v. Municipal Court (Gonzales) (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 114 , 117– 119; CALCRIM No. 2130.) It was not objectively reasonable for Officer Yost to believe that the implied consent law even applied here. (§ 23612.) The only two subdivisions 18 of the statute deeming drivers to have given their consent to a blood draw are subdivisions (a)(1)(A) and (B), both of which apply only if the driver is “lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 213153.” Section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(C) further states that “[t]he testing shall be incidental to a l | 2 | 2023–2024 |
People v. Agnew
neutral
2 sentences2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies 2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bravo
green
2 sentences2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is 2016(See People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795 [“[A] person may validly consent in advance to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term.”]; People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3d 759, 766 [“[W]hen defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agreed to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waived whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.”]; cf. id. at p. 763, fn. 1 [“Although it could be argued that defendant impliedly consented to the search by not objecting to it, it is | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Mueller v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence2026That procedure includes holding an APS hearing at the request of the licensee. (§§ 13353, subd. (e); 13558.) For a first-time violation of sections 23140, 23152, and 23153, a 6 person’s refusal to submit to chemical testing under section 23612 subjects them to a driver’s license suspension “for a period of one year.” (§ 13353, subd. (a)(1).) “An essential condition to the application of Vehicle Code section 13353 is that the suspect be lawfully arrested on probable cause to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.” (Mueller v. Department of Moto | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Sandoval
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 410 .) Vehicle Code section 23612, subdivision (a)(1)(A), the implied consent statute, provides that: “[a] person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.” “The testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Sudduth
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Sudduth (1966) 65 Cal.2d 543, 545-546 ; People v. Municipal Court (Gonzales) (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 114, 119 .) Keukelaar argues there was no substantial evidence that he refused to take the test. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence2018On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings-whether express or implied-must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.' " ' " ( Id. at p. 690, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) Under section 23612, a "person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153." (§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The statute "applies | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Curtis T.
green
2 sentences2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio 2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Smith
green
2 sentences2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio 2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Jaime P.
green
1 sentence2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Arcade County Water District v. Arcade Fire District
green
2 sentences2016(Black's Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 394, col. 2 ["A contract that the parties presumably intended as their tacit understanding, as inferred from their conduct and other circumstances."].) An "implied-in-law" contract, however, is not a real contract at all, but a "quasi-contract" imposed upon a party to remedy unjust enrichment or other inequity. ( Ibid. ["An implied-in-law contract is not actually a contract, but instead is a remedy that allows the plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred on the defendant."]; Arcade County Water Dist. v. Arcade Fire Dist. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 232 , 236, 85 C 2016(Black's Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 394, col. 2 ["A contract that the parties presumably intended as their tacit understanding, as inferred from their conduct and other circumstances."].) An "implied-in-law" contract, however, is not a real contract at all, but a "quasi-contract" imposed upon a party to remedy unjust enrichment or other inequity. ( Ibid. ["An implied-in-law contract is not actually a contract, but instead is a remedy that allows the plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred on the defendant."]; Arcade County Water Dist. v. Arcade Fire Dist. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 232 , 236, 85 C | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Tyrell J.
red
2 sentences2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio 2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio 2016As pertinent here, section 23612 provides: "(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.... "[¶] ... [¶] "(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Sectio | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.