existence of prejudicial error (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

existence of prejudicial error in California

13 California opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2020 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.

Followed or applied (15)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Watsongreen
cal · 1956 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1963
2 sentences

1963However incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true. [Citing cases.] ” ’ ” The test to be applied in determining the existence of prejudicial error has been stated by the Supreme Court as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘ after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,’ is of the ‘opinion’ that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” (People v. Watson

1963However incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true. [Citing cases.] ” ’ ” The test to be applied in determining the existence of prejudicial error has been stated by the Supreme Court as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘ after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,’ is of the ‘opinion’ that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” (People v. Watson

33
Eddie v. Schumacher Wall Board Co.green
calctapp · 1926 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1967
2 sentences

1967(Eddie v. Schumacher Wall Board Co., 79 Cal.App. 318, 322 [ 249 P. 235 ] ; Jenssen v. R.K.O.

1967(Eddie v. Schumacher Wall Board Co., 79 Cal.App. 318, 322 [ 249 P. 235 ] ; Jenssen v. R.K.O.

22
County of Orange v. Smithgreen
calctapp · 2005 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014(County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1443 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 383 ].) As Jade Fashion correctly points out, its three common count claims were pled as alternatives to its breach of contract claims.

2014(County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1443 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 383 ].) As Jade Fashion correctly points out, its three common count claims were pled as alternatives to its breach of contract claims.

12
People v. Powellgreen
cal · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

11
Chapman v. Californiayellow
scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

11
Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Districtgreen
calctapp · 1964 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967
2 sentences

1967(Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Dist., 229 Cal.App.2d 25, 31 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 919 ]; Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School, 6 Cal.2d 395 [ 57 P.2d 1315 ]; Buxbom v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 535, 543 [ 145 P.2d 305 ].) The burden is on an appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of the appeal.

1967(Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Dist., 229 Cal.App.2d 25, 31 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 919 ]; Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School, 6 Cal.2d 395 [ 57 P.2d 1315 ]; Buxbom v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 535, 543 [ 145 P.2d 305 ].) The burden is on an appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of the appeal.

11
Buxbom v. Smithgreen
cal · 1944 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967
2 sentences

1967(Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Dist., 229 Cal.App.2d 25, 31 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 919 ]; Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School, 6 Cal.2d 395 [ 57 P.2d 1315 ]; Buxbom v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 535, 543 [ 145 P.2d 305 ].) The burden is on an appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of the appeal.

1967(Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Dist., 229 Cal.App.2d 25, 31 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 919 ]; Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School, 6 Cal.2d 395 [ 57 P.2d 1315 ]; Buxbom v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 535, 543 [ 145 P.2d 305 ].) The burden is on an appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of the appeal.

11
Erskine v. Uphamgreen
calctapp · 1942 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963
2 sentences

1963(Wells v. Lloyd, 21 Cal.2d 452, 460 [ 132 P.2d 471 ] ; *636 Erskine v. Upham, 56 Cal.App.2d 235, 251 [ 132 P.2d 219 ].) Moreover, the burden is on the appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of his appeal, and such prejudice must affirmatively appear in order to warrant a reversal.

1963(Wells v. Lloyd, 21 Cal.2d 452, 460 [ 132 P.2d 471 ] ; *636 Erskine v. Upham, 56 Cal.App.2d 235, 251 [ 132 P.2d 219 ].) Moreover, the burden is on the appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of his appeal, and such prejudice must affirmatively appear in order to warrant a reversal.

11
Wells v. Lloydgreen
cal · 1942 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963
2 sentences

1963(Wells v. Lloyd, 21 Cal.2d 452, 460 [ 132 P.2d 471 ] ; *636 Erskine v. Upham, 56 Cal.App.2d 235, 251 [ 132 P.2d 219 ].) Moreover, the burden is on the appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of his appeal, and such prejudice must affirmatively appear in order to warrant a reversal.

1963(Wells v. Lloyd, 21 Cal.2d 452, 460 [ 132 P.2d 471 ] ; *636 Erskine v. Upham, 56 Cal.App.2d 235, 251 [ 132 P.2d 219 ].) Moreover, the burden is on the appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of his appeal, and such prejudice must affirmatively appear in order to warrant a reversal.

11
People v. Greengreen
calctapp · 1936 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961
2 sentences

1961(Cf. People v. Wilkes, 44 Cal.2d 679, 685 [ 284 P.2d 481 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 86 P.2d 811 ] ; People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.2d 608, 610 [ 59 P.2d 824 ].) The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.

1961(Cf. People v. Wilkes, 44 Cal.2d 679, 685 [ 284 P.2d 481 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 86 P.2d 811 ] ; People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.2d 608, 610 [ 59 P.2d 824 ].) The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.

11
People v. Wilkesgreen
cal · 1955 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961
2 sentences

1961(Cf. People v. Wilkes, 44 Cal.2d 679, 685 [ 284 P.2d 481 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 86 P.2d 811 ] ; People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.2d 608, 610 [ 59 P.2d 824 ].) The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.

1961(Cf. People v. Wilkes, 44 Cal.2d 679, 685 [ 284 P.2d 481 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 86 P.2d 811 ] ; People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.2d 608, 610 [ 59 P.2d 824 ].) The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.

11
People v. Davidgreen
cal · 1939 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961
2 sentences

1961(Cf. People v. Wilkes, 44 Cal.2d 679, 685 [ 284 P.2d 481 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 86 P.2d 811 ] ; People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.2d 608, 610 [ 59 P.2d 824 ].) The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.

1961(Cf. People v. Wilkes, 44 Cal.2d 679, 685 [ 284 P.2d 481 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 86 P.2d 811 ] ; People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.2d 608, 610 [ 59 P.2d 824 ].) The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed.

11
People v. Von Badenthalgreen
calctapp · 1935 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
2 sentences

1960(People v. Ray, 146 Cal.App.2d 257, 259 [ 303 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Von Badenthal, 8 Cal.App.2d 404, 412 [ 48 P.2d 82 ] ; People v. Cohen, 113 Cal.App. 260, 263 [ 298 P. 114 ].) We conclude that appellant has wholly failed to establish the existence of prejudicial error.

1960(People v. Ray, 146 Cal.App.2d 257, 259 [ 303 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Von Badenthal, 8 Cal.App.2d 404, 412 [ 48 P.2d 82 ] ; People v. Cohen, 113 Cal.App. 260, 263 [ 298 P. 114 ].) We conclude that appellant has wholly failed to establish the existence of prejudicial error.

11
People v. Cohengreen
calctapp · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
2 sentences

1960(People v. Ray, 146 Cal.App.2d 257, 259 [ 303 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Von Badenthal, 8 Cal.App.2d 404, 412 [ 48 P.2d 82 ] ; People v. Cohen, 113 Cal.App. 260, 263 [ 298 P. 114 ].) We conclude that appellant has wholly failed to establish the existence of prejudicial error.

1960(People v. Ray, 146 Cal.App.2d 257, 259 [ 303 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Von Badenthal, 8 Cal.App.2d 404, 412 [ 48 P.2d 82 ] ; People v. Cohen, 113 Cal.App. 260, 263 [ 298 P. 114 ].) We conclude that appellant has wholly failed to establish the existence of prejudicial error.

11
People v. Raygreen
calctapp · 1956 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
2 sentences

1960(People v. Ray, 146 Cal.App.2d 257, 259 [ 303 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Von Badenthal, 8 Cal.App.2d 404, 412 [ 48 P.2d 82 ] ; People v. Cohen, 113 Cal.App. 260, 263 [ 298 P. 114 ].) We conclude that appellant has wholly failed to establish the existence of prejudicial error.

1960(People v. Ray, 146 Cal.App.2d 257, 259 [ 303 P.2d 591 ]; People v. Von Badenthal, 8 Cal.App.2d 404, 412 [ 48 P.2d 82 ] ; People v. Cohen, 113 Cal.App. 260, 263 [ 298 P. 114 ].) We conclude that appellant has wholly failed to establish the existence of prejudicial error.

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 (14)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Ramirez neutral
calctapp · 1923
2 sentences

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

21925–1925
In Re Mayen neutral
calctapp · 1920
2 sentences

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

21925–1925
People v. Gallanar neutral
cal · 1904
2 sentences

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

1925The law is well settled that where an appeal is not clearly and palpably frivolous and vexatious, but presents debatable questions upon which there may be honest difference of opinion in regard to the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings leading to the conviction, a writ of probable cause should be granted (People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 656 [ 79 Pac. 378 ]; In re Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Valencia, 45 Cal. 304 ; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73 ]; In the Matter of Mayen, 49 Cal. App. 531 [ 193 Pac. 813 ]; People v. Clinton et al., 72 Cal. App. 88

21925–1925
In re Adams green
cal · 1889
2 sentences

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

21925–1925
Zelig v. County of Los Angeles green
cal · 2002
1 sentence

2020The trial court granted Bragg’s and Barbour’s request for judicial notice “as to Exhibits B, E-F, H, K-L, and N-O,” and granted Hills’s request for judicial notice “as to Exhibits B-D, I, P, R, and W.” It granted all other requests for judicial notice “as to the existence of the documents, and the fact that certain statements were made, but not as to the truth of the contents.” (Original italics.) We note again that our review of a trial court’s order sustaining demurrers includes “matters which may be judicially noticed.” (Zelig, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1126 .) The record Hills procured for o

12020–2020
Kyne v. Eustice green
calctapp · 1963
1 sentence

2020First, as in any appeal, “the burden is on the appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of his appeal, and such prejudice must affirmatively appear in order to warrant a reversal.” (Kyne v. Eustice (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 627, 635-636 .) At the hearing on Bragg’s and Barbour’s demurrers, the trial court considered requests for judicial notice of at least 38 documents—15 submitted by Bragg and Barbour, and another 23 submitted by Hills.

12020–2020
People v. Ortiz green
cal · 1978
1 sentence

1979The factors to be considered are principally the following: (1) whether a separate trial would have been “significantly less prejudicial to defendant than the joint trial”; (2) “whether there was clear evidence of defendant’s guilt”; and (3) a reversal is justified “only upon a showing ‘of a reasonable probability that the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result at a separate trial.’ ” ( Ortiz, supra, 22 Cal.3d 38, 46 .) It remains for us to apply the analysis of Massie and Ortiz to the case at bench and determine whether the denial of a separate trial to defendant Alfonso was pr

11979–1979
People v. Randall red
cal · 1970
2 sentences

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

11977–1977
People v. Fioritto green
cal · 1968
1 sentence

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

11977–1977
People v. Spencer green
cal · 1967
2 sentences

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

1977Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession Is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 958 ; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal.2d 714, 720 ), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 158 -168 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 163 , 4

11977–1977
Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School green
cal · 1936
2 sentences

1967(Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Dist., 229 Cal.App.2d 25, 31 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 919 ]; Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School, 6 Cal.2d 395 [ 57 P.2d 1315 ]; Buxbom v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 535, 543 [ 145 P.2d 305 ].) The burden is on an appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of the appeal.

1967(Schuetram v. Granada Sanitary Dist., 229 Cal.App.2d 25, 31 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 919 ]; Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding School, 6 Cal.2d 395 [ 57 P.2d 1315 ]; Buxbom v. Smith, 23 Cal.2d 535, 543 [ 145 P.2d 305 ].) The burden is on an appellant to establish the existence of prejudicial error affecting the merits of the appeal.

11967–1967
People v. Clinton neutral
calctapp · 1925
2 sentences

1925The law is well settled that where an appeal is not clearly and palpably frivolous and vexatious, but presents debatable questions upon which there may be honest difference of opinion in regard to the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings leading to the conviction, a writ of probable cause should be granted (People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 656 [ 79 Pac. 378 ]; In re Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Valencia, 45 Cal. 304 ; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73 ]; In the Matter of Mayen, 49 Cal. App. 531 [ 193 Pac. 813 ]; People v. Clinton et al., 72 Cal. App. 88

1925The law is well settled that where an appeal is not clearly and palpably frivolous and vexatious, but presents debatable questions upon which there may be honest difference of opinion in regard to the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings leading to the conviction, a writ of probable cause should be granted (People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 656 [ 79 Pac. 378 ]; In re Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Valencia, 45 Cal. 304 ; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73 ]; In the Matter of Mayen, 49 Cal. App. 531 [ 193 Pac. 813 ]; People v. Clinton et al., 72 Cal. App. 88

11925–1925
People v. Valencia neutral
cal · 1873
1 sentence

1925The law is well settled that where an appeal is not clearly and palpably frivolous and vexatious, but presents debatable questions upon which there may be honest difference of opinion in regard to the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings leading to the conviction, a writ of probable cause should be granted (People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 656 [ 79 Pac. 378 ]; In re Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Valencia, 45 Cal. 304 ; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73 ]; In the Matter of Mayen, 49 Cal. App. 531 [ 193 Pac. 813 ]; People v. Clinton et al., 72 Cal. App. 88

11925–1925
People v. Lane neutral
cal · 1892
1 sentence

1925Where a case is presented in which the existence of prejudicial error in the proceedings resulting in conviction is a debatable question on which honest differences of opinion may exist, and the appeal is not merely frivolous or vexatious, it is the duty of the trial court to grant such certificate, and upon its refusal so to do this court has the legal power, and it is its duty, to grant relief (In the Matter of Harris Adams, 81 Cal. 163 [22 Pac. 547]; People v. Gallanar, 144 Cal. 657 [79 Pac. 378]; People v. Lane, 96 Cal. 597 [ 31 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Ramirez, 63 Cal. App. 510 [ 219 Pac. 73

11925–1925

Where else courts name it

CA 13 (1925–2020) MO 5 (1986–2014) OH 4 (2025–2026) OR 2 (1949–1963)

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