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.
13 California opinions name it 3 courts 1927–2019 0 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. Lawleygreen2 sentences2010We rejected an almost identical claim in People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 132-133 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ]. 2010We rejected an almost identical claim in People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 132-133 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Karisgreen2 sentences1996We rejected an almost identical claim in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638-641 [ 250 Cal. Rptr. 659 , 758 P.2d 1189 ]. 1996We rejected an almost identical claim in People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638-641 [ 250 Cal. Rptr. 659 , 758 P.2d 1189 ]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences1996In that case the defendant had offered to stipulate that he had committed a rape with force and violence; to the "`factual basis surrounding that rape'"; and to statements given to police officers by the witnesses to the defense. ( Id. at p. 638.) In distinguishing the case from People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 152 [ 167 Cal. Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], in which the defendant offered to stipulate to a status as an ex-felon — an element of the offense with which he was charged — we stated: "The purpose of introducing evidence of prior convictions as aggravating factors at the penalty phase 1996In that case the defendant had offered to stipulate that he had committed a rape with force and violence; to the "`factual basis surrounding that rape'"; and to statements given to police officers by the witnesses to the defense. ( Id. at p. 638.) In distinguishing the case from People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 152 [ 167 Cal. Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], in which the defendant offered to stipulate to a status as an ex-felon — an element of the offense with which he was charged — we stated: "The purpose of introducing evidence of prior convictions as aggravating factors at the penalty phase | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colliergreen2 sentences1960In People v. Collier, 113 Cal.App.2d 861, 870 [ 249 P.2d 72 ], a similar objection was made to an almost identical instruction. 1960In People v. Collier, 113 Cal.App.2d 861, 870 [ 249 P.2d 72 ], a similar objection was made to an almost identical instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. MacIelgreen1 sentence1937An almost identical instruction was held to be improper in People v. Maciel, 71 Cal. App. 213, 217 [ 234 Pac. 877 ], on the ground that it violated the fundamental rule that whenever a specific intent is an essential ingredient of an offense no presumption of law can arise to obviate the requirement that the prosecution shall prove such intent just as it is bound to prove any other fact which is a necessary element of the crime. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floresgreen2 sentences1937To the same effect is the decision in People v. Flores, 86 Cal. App. 235, 237 [ 260 Pac. 822 ]. 1937To the same effect is the decision in People v. Flores, 86 Cal. App. 235, 237 [ 260 Pac. 822 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Higgins v. Higgins
neutral
2 sentences1944This question, however, is decided adversely to the contention of the appellant in the ease of Higgins v. Higgins, 121 Cal. 487 [ 66 Am.St.Rep. 57 , 53 P. 1081 ], where it was held that an almost identical clause as the one contained in the agreement under consideration was valid. 1944This question, however, is decided adversely to the contention of the appellant in the ease of Higgins v. Higgins, 121 Cal. 487 [ 66 Am.St.Rep. 57 , 53 P. 1081 ], where it was held that an almost identical clause as the one contained in the agreement under consideration was valid. | 3 | 1927–1944 |
People v. Quintero
green
2 sentences2019When presented with an almost identical error in *903 People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152 , 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 , the Court of Appeal took the same step that the trial court did here. 2019When presented with an almost identical error in *903 People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152 , 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 884 , the Court of Appeal took the same step that the trial court did here. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Blake
green
2 sentences1940(Pomeroy’s Code Remedies, 4th ed., p. 555.) ” An almost identical instruction was approved in People v. Blake, 129 Cal. App. 196 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 399 ]. 1940(Pomeroy’s Code Remedies, 4th ed., p. 555.) ” An almost identical instruction was approved in People v. Blake, 129 Cal. App. 196 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 399 ]. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
In Re Ortiz
green
1 sentence1937An almost identical instruction was held to be improper in People v. Maciel, 71 Cal. App. 213, 217 [ 234 Pac. 877 ], on the ground that it violated the fundamental rule that whenever a specific intent is an essential ingredient of an offense no presumption of law can arise to obviate the requirement that the prosecution shall prove such intent just as it is bound to prove any other fact which is a necessary element of the crime. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Storrs v. Los Angeles Traction Co.
green
2 sentences1936A. Yes sir.’ “Plaintiff also testified that as a farmer prior to his injuries he personally took charge of his tractors and farming implements, making the necessary repairs and doing the actual work but since that time he gets agitated and cannot attend to business so far as the physical requirements are concerned, is unable to use his crippled,hand, cannot walk enough, nor operate a car as he once did, and at the time of the trial was able to carry on no actual business. *494 “The objections urged by appellant to the instruction are very similar to those urged to an almost identical instructi 1936A. Yes sir.’ “Plaintiff also testified that as a farmer prior to his injuries he personally took charge of his tractors and farming implements, making the necessary repairs and doing the actual work but since that time he gets agitated and cannot attend to business so far as the physical requirements are concerned, is unable to use his crippled,hand, cannot walk enough, nor operate a car as he once did, and at the time of the trial was able to carry on no actual business. *494 “The objections urged by appellant to the instruction are very similar to those urged to an almost identical instructi | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Dullanty v. Smith
green
2 sentences1936In the ease of Dullanty v. Smith, 203 Cal. 621 [ 265 Pac. 814 ], an almost identical instruction was upheld by the Supreme Court. 1936In the ease of Dullanty v. Smith, 203 Cal. 621 [ 265 Pac. 814 ], an almost identical instruction was upheld by the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
People v. Maughs
green
2 sentences1928Again, in instruction number 9, we find the following sentence: “If the circumstances, as they appear to the defendant, would have induced a reasonable man so situated, to believe that there was a reasonable mode available to him to escape from danger of death or great bodily harm, the danger thereof would not then be imminent and the killing would not be justifiable.” While in some states this rule is followed, the modern trend is to the contrary, and the *140 exact opposite is the law in the state of California. (13 Cal. Jur., p. 649, sec. 49.) In the case of People v. Maughs, 149 Cal. 253 [ 1928Again, in instruction number 9, we find the following sentence: “If the circumstances, as they appear to the defendant, would have induced a reasonable man so situated, to believe that there was a reasonable mode available to him to escape from danger of death or great bodily harm, the danger thereof would not then be imminent and the killing would not be justifiable.” While in some states this rule is followed, the modern trend is to the contrary, and the *140 exact opposite is the law in the state of California. (13 Cal. Jur., p. 649, sec. 49.) In the case of People v. Maughs, 149 Cal. 253 [ | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.