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 2 courts 1933–2025 5 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. Gregersongreen1 sentence2025Mother already has received the relief she seeks—an order that DCFS comply with its section 224.2 inquiry duties and document its efforts.7 (See, e.g., People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321 [appeal moot where appellant already received the relief he sought on appeal].) On March 4, 2025, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to “interview/attempt to interview all known and available extended family members about whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child as required by . . . section 224.2, subd. (b),” to document its efforts, and to submit a written report on the results to the co | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nievesgreen1 sentence2025(Nieves, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 508 [defendant’s absence when restitution fines were imposed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where defense counsel was present, raised defendant’s inability to pay the restitution fine and disputed payment of direct victim restitution, and there was nothing in the record to indicate that defendant would have added any significant information about her inability to pay beyond that presented by defense counsel].) The People note that defense counsel was present at the resentencing hearing and that defendant had submitted extensive materials to the trial court | 1 | 1 |
Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2014(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).) This is in order to “ 1 “ ‘prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class.’ ” ’ ” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 483 ].) “The court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. [Citations.] The purpose of the requirement is ‘the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1801, fn. omitted.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 sets forth the procedure to be followed 2014(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).) This is in order to “ 1 “ ‘prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class.’ ” ’ ” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 483 ].) “The court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. [Citations.] The purpose of the requirement is ‘the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1801, fn. omitted.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 sets forth the procedure to be followed | 1 | 1 |
Conservatorship of Sidesgreen1 sentence2007Code, § 1826, subd. (k); see also Conservatorship of Sides, at p. 1094, 260 Cal. Rptr. 16 .) As Agency points out, because the Legislature has expressly excluded the requirements of Probate Code section 1826 from the LPS Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5350), there is no provision in the LPS scheme for the "court investigator" to report in writing the proposed conservatee's willingness to attend the hearing or desire to contest the conservatorship. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yun Ko Tanggreen2 sentences2007Thus, no error affirmatively appears in the record on appeal. 7 “Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 ].) “ ‘We must indulge in every presumption to uphold a judgment, and it is defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively demonstrate error—it will not be presumed. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 677 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 876 ].) Not only doe 2007Thus, no error affirmatively appears in the record on appeal. 7 “Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 ].) “ ‘We must indulge in every presumption to uphold a judgment, and it is defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively demonstrate error—it will not be presumed. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 677 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 876 ].) Not only doe | 1 | 1 |
People v. SANGHERAgreen2 sentences2007Thus, no error affirmatively appears in the record on appeal. 7 “Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 ].) “ ‘We must indulge in every presumption to uphold a judgment, and it is defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively demonstrate error—it will not be presumed. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 677 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 876 ].) Not only doe 2007Thus, no error affirmatively appears in the record on appeal. 7 “Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 ].) “ ‘We must indulge in every presumption to uphold a judgment, and it is defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively demonstrate error—it will not be presumed. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 677 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 876 ].) Not only doe | 1 | 1 |
Hallinan v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1946(See Larson v. Blue & White Cab Co., 24 Cal.App.2d 576 [ 75 P.2d 612 ], and cases cited at page 578 ; Hallinan v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App. 420, 426 [ 240 P. 788 ].) Furthermore, section 1097, supra, furnishes no ground *206 for a review by this court of the merits of the case before the lower court, nor can it serve as a writ of error or appeal from the judgment of that court. 1946(See Larson v. Blue & White Cab Co., 24 Cal.App.2d 576 [ 75 P.2d 612 ], and cases cited at page 578 ; Hallinan v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App. 420, 426 [ 240 P. 788 ].) Furthermore, section 1097, supra, furnishes no ground *206 for a review by this court of the merits of the case before the lower court, nor can it serve as a writ of error or appeal from the judgment of that court. | 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. Acosta
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 427 .) An incorrect award of presentence custody credits is an unauthorized sentence which may be corrected at any time. 2022(People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 427 .) An incorrect award of presentence custody credits is an unauthorized sentence which may be corrected at any time. | 3 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Kelly
yellow
1 sentence1987NOTES [1] In a letter sent to the court before the hearing, Amber's mother reported that her son had described instances of possible sexual abuse of Amber by an aunt. [2] The proponent of the evidence must also show that the witness furnishing the expert testimony is qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject, and must demonstrate that correct scientific procedures were used in the particular case. ( People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 .) [3] "Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome" describes the purportedly typical behavior of children who have been victims of repeated | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Marlow v. Wene
green
1 sentence1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Bourland v. Walker
green
1 sentence1973(In re Walker (1964) supra, 228 Cal. App.2d 217, 226 .) 26 Greene v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 307 [ 231 P.2d 821 ], holds that when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the court first assuming jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the other court—a rule which would place exclusive jurisdiction in the San Francisco Superior Court in the present controversy. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Goodwine v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Perry v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Sampsell v. Superior Court
red
1 sentence1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Leathers v. Leathers
green
2 sentences1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar 1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Greene v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1973(In re Walker (1964) supra, 228 Cal. App.2d 217, 226 .) 26 Greene v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 307 [ 231 P.2d 821 ], holds that when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the court first assuming jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the other court—a rule which would place exclusive jurisdiction in the San Francisco Superior Court in the present controversy. 1973(In re Walker (1964) supra, 228 Cal. App.2d 217, 226 .) 26 Greene v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 307 [ 231 P.2d 821 ], holds that when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the court first assuming jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the other court—a rule which would place exclusive jurisdiction in the San Francisco Superior Court in the present controversy. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Allen v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar 1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Miller v. Schneider
neutral
1 sentence1973It would, however, have facilitated proceedings if counsel had submitted written declarations alleging such mistreatment to the court before the hearing of August 30 instead of relying upon oral argument at that hearing. 21 “[T]here is no reason why [the] courts of one state should not be able to ‘assume with confidence that the courts of the other jurisdiction will act with wisdom and sincerity in all matters pertaining to the welfare of this child.’ (Miller v. Schneider (Tex.Civ.App.) 170 S.W.2d 301, 303 .)” (Sampsell v. Superior Court (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 763, 779 .) 22 See generally Mar | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Larson v. Blue & White Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1946(See Larson v. Blue & White Cab Co., 24 Cal.App.2d 576 [ 75 P.2d 612 ], and cases cited at page 578 ; Hallinan v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App. 420, 426 [ 240 P. 788 ].) Furthermore, section 1097, supra, furnishes no ground *206 for a review by this court of the merits of the case before the lower court, nor can it serve as a writ of error or appeal from the judgment of that court. 1946(See Larson v. Blue & White Cab Co., 24 Cal.App.2d 576 [ 75 P.2d 612 ], and cases cited at page 578 ; Hallinan v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App. 420, 426 [ 240 P. 788 ].) Furthermore, section 1097, supra, furnishes no ground *206 for a review by this court of the merits of the case before the lower court, nor can it serve as a writ of error or appeal from the judgment of that court. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Ex Parte Daniels
green
2 sentences1934After the trial and before the hearing of the case on appeal the decision entitled Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636 [ 192 Pac. 442 , 21 A. L. 1934After the trial and before the hearing of the case on appeal the decision entitled Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636 [ 192 Pac. 442 , 21 A. L. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Estate of Boselly
green
2 sentences1933(Estate of Boselly, 179 Cal. 218 [ 176 Pac. 45 ].) In the case herein the entire matter of alimony and motion for modification may have been submitted to the court before the hearing of May 11, 1932, upon one of the occasions when continuances were had. 1933(Estate of Boselly, 179 Cal. 218 [ 176 Pac. 45 ].) In the case herein the entire matter of alimony and motion for modification may have been submitted to the court before the hearing of May 11, 1932, upon one of the occasions when continuances were had. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.