13 California opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2011(See People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1223-1227 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 80 P.3d 662 ] [because officers’ conduct in investigation of robbery ring was “entirely unexceptionable,” court declined to resolve whether Russell doctrine applies in context of California entrapment cases]; Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561, 570 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 ] [assuming arguendo Russell doctrine applied, use of underage decoys to enforce liquor laws was not outrageous conduct]; In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 55 [assuming prosecutorial misconduc 2011(See People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1223-1227 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 80 P.3d 662 ] [because officers’ conduct in investigation of robbery ring was “entirely unexceptionable,” court declined to resolve whether Russell doctrine applies in context of California entrapment cases]; Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561, 570 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 ] [assuming arguendo Russell doctrine applied, use of underage decoys to enforce liquor laws was not outrageous conduct]; In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 55 [assuming prosecutorial misconduc | 2 | 2 |
People v. Vo Thanh Thoigreen2 sentences2003(See, e.g., People v. Isaacson (1978) 44 N.Y.2d 511 [ 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 ].)" ( McIntire, at p. 748, fn. 1, 153 Cal.Rptr. 237 , 591 P.2d 527 .) [4] In Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 , we rejected the claim that the practice of using mature-looking minors to buy alcoholic beverages rose "to the level of `overbearing' conduct needed to constitute entrapment under Barraza . " ( Id. at p. 569, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 .) We rejected the petitioners due process claim, as well, and in the cours 2003(See, e.g., People v. Isaacson (1978) 44 N.Y.2d 511 [ 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 ].)" ( McIntire, at p. 748, fn. 1, 153 Cal.Rptr. 237 , 591 P.2d 527 .) [4] In Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 , we rejected the claim that the practice of using mature-looking minors to buy alcoholic beverages rose "to the level of `overbearing' conduct needed to constitute entrapment under Barraza . " ( Id. at p. 569, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 .) We rejected the petitioners due process claim, as well, and in the cours | 1 | 3 |
Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.green1 sentence2023One purpose is to give defendants reasonable repose, thereby protecting parties from ‘defending stale claims, where factual obscurity through the loss of time, memory or supporting documentation may present unfair handicaps.’ [Citations.] A statute of limitations also stimulates plaintiffs to pursue their claims diligently. [Citations.]” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806 (Fox).) 12 Because Russell’s motion was filed outside any of the time limits listed in section 2122, the trial court did not determine whether any of the grounds for relief in section 2122 existed. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2014Unlike the jury trial which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1237 ; see also People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1292, fn. 27 [defendant forfeited right to public trial by failing to assert error below].) In any event, Russell’s claim has no merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2011(See People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1223-1227 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 80 P.3d 662 ] [because officers’ conduct in investigation of robbery ring was “entirely unexceptionable,” court declined to resolve whether Russell doctrine applies in context of California entrapment cases]; Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561, 570 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 ] [assuming arguendo Russell doctrine applied, use of underage decoys to enforce liquor laws was not outrageous conduct]; In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 55 [assuming prosecutorial misconduc 2011(See People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1223-1227 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 80 P.3d 662 ] [because officers’ conduct in investigation of robbery ring was “entirely unexceptionable,” court declined to resolve whether Russell doctrine applies in context of California entrapment cases]; Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561, 570 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 ] [assuming arguendo Russell doctrine applied, use of underage decoys to enforce liquor laws was not outrageous conduct]; In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 55 [assuming prosecutorial misconduc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wesleygreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., People v. Wesley (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1142-1145 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; People v. Towery (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1133-1137 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 ]; People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 685-687 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 879 ].) 2. 2011(See, e.g., People v. Wesley (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1142-1145 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; People v. Towery (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1133-1137 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 ]; People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 685-687 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 879 ].) 2. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Towerygreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., People v. Wesley (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1142-1145 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; People v. Towery (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1133-1137 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 ]; People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 685-687 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 879 ].) 2. 2011(See, e.g., People v. Wesley (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1142-1145 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; People v. Towery (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1133-1137 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 ]; People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 685-687 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 879 ].) 2. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Martingreen1 sentence2011(See People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1223-1227 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 80 P.3d 662 ] [because officers’ conduct in investigation of robbery ring was “entirely unexceptionable,” court declined to resolve whether Russell doctrine applies in context of California entrapment cases]; Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561, 570 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 ] [assuming arguendo Russell doctrine applied, use of underage decoys to enforce liquor laws was not outrageous conduct]; In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 55 [assuming prosecutorial misconduc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Alexandergreen1 sentence2011(See People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1223-1227 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 80 P.3d 662 ] [because officers’ conduct in investigation of robbery ring was “entirely unexceptionable,” court declined to resolve whether Russell doctrine applies in context of California entrapment cases]; Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561, 570 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 ] [assuming arguendo Russell doctrine applied, use of underage decoys to enforce liquor laws was not outrageous conduct]; In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 55 [assuming prosecutorial misconduc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pepparsgreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., People v. Wesley (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1142-1145 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; People v. Towery (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1133-1137 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 ]; People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 685-687 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 879 ].) 2. 2011(See, e.g., People v. Wesley (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1130, 1142-1145 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; People v. Towery (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1133-1137 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 ]; People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 685-687 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 879 ].) 2. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McIntiregreen2 sentences2003(See, e.g., People v. Isaacson (1978) 44 N.Y.2d 511 [ 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 ].)" ( McIntire, at p. 748, fn. 1, 153 Cal.Rptr. 237 , 591 P.2d 527 .) [4] In Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 , we rejected the claim that the practice of using mature-looking minors to buy alcoholic beverages rose "to the level of `overbearing' conduct needed to constitute entrapment under Barraza . " ( Id. at p. 569, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 .) We rejected the petitioners due process claim, as well, and in the cours 2003(See, e.g., People v. Isaacson (1978) 44 N.Y.2d 511 [ 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 ].)" ( McIntire, at p. 748, fn. 1, 153 Cal.Rptr. 237 , 591 P.2d 527 .) [4] In Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 561 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 , we rejected the claim that the practice of using mature-looking minors to buy alcoholic beverages rose "to the level of `overbearing' conduct needed to constitute entrapment under Barraza . " ( Id. at p. 569, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 869 P.2d 1163 .) We rejected the petitioners due process claim, as well, and in the cours | 1 | 1 |
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpered2 sentences1995P. A. (9th Cir. 1980) 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 ) have recognized an “all relevant factors” exception to the general rule that extra-record evidence is not admissible to show that an action by a federal agency was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” within the meaning of section 706 of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. ( 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416-421 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 136, 153, 156 , 91 S.Ct. 814 ].) However, if we were to adopt an “all relevant factors” exception that was as broa 1995P. A. (9th Cir. 1980) 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 ) have recognized an “all relevant factors” exception to the general rule that extra-record evidence is not admissible to show that an action by a federal agency was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” within the meaning of section 706 of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. ( 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416-421 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 136, 153, 156 , 91 S.Ct. 814 ].) However, if we were to adopt an “all relevant factors” exception that was as broa | 1 | 1 |
Garrison v. Rourkegreen2 sentences1970(Cf. Garrison v. Rourke, 32 Cal.2d 430, 441 [ 196 P.2d 884 ].) Contestants are not required to ask voters how they voted. 1970(Cf. Garrison v. Rourke, 32 Cal.2d 430, 441 [ 196 P.2d 884 ].) Contestants are not required to ask voters how they voted. | 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. Delgadillo
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 227 , 1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code. 2 Though the court denied Russell’s motion on the merits, it also noted that Russell had already brought a substantially similar motion once before and been denied. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2016At the sentencing hearing on October 23, 2015, the court denied Russell's motion to dismiss his two prior strikes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
green
1 sentence2015(Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1264 .) “When reviewing a judgment dismissing a complaint after a successful demurrer, we assume the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations are true, and we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it in context. [Citation.] We also consider judicially noticeable matters. [Citation.] If we see a reasonable possibility that the 14 plaintiff could cure the defect by amendment, then we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2015(Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242 .) The second amended complaint would have alleged causes of action for negligence; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; constructive fraud; and elder financial abuse, neglect, mental suffering, and abandonment. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1000 .) But even on the merits, we find Russell’s claim lacking, and for that reason do not need to discuss his further claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Virgil
green
1 sentence2014Unlike the jury trial which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1237 ; see also People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1292, fn. 27 [defendant forfeited right to public trial by failing to assert error below].) In any event, Russell’s claim has no merit. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Asarco, Inc. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
green
1 sentence1995P. A. (9th Cir. 1980) 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 ) have recognized an “all relevant factors” exception to the general rule that extra-record evidence is not admissible to show that an action by a federal agency was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” within the meaning of section 706 of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. ( 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416-421 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 136, 153, 156 , 91 S.Ct. 814 ].) However, if we were to adopt an “all relevant factors” exception that was as broa | 1 | 1995–1995 |
California Hotel & Motel Ass'n v. Industrial Welfare Commission
green
2 sentences1995According to WSPA, in the case at bar such an exception would allow it to introduce (1) the opinion of Dr. Armistead Russell regarding the proper application of the “Russell test,” which, according to WSPA, the ARB misapplied in developing the regulations at issue, and (2) the complete opinion of Dr. Michael Gery and other experts regarding studies prepared by Dr. William Carter and relied on by the ARB. *577 We have held that in reviewing certain quasi-legislative administrative decisions in mandamus proceedings, the courts “must ensure that an agency has adequately considered all relevant fa 1995According to WSPA, in the case at bar such an exception would allow it to introduce (1) the opinion of Dr. Armistead Russell regarding the proper application of the “Russell test,” which, according to WSPA, the ARB misapplied in developing the regulations at issue, and (2) the complete opinion of Dr. Michael Gery and other experts regarding studies prepared by Dr. William Carter and relied on by the ARB. *577 We have held that in reviewing certain quasi-legislative administrative decisions in mandamus proceedings, the courts “must ensure that an agency has adequately considered all relevant fa | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Russell
green
2 sentences1994(See United States v. Russell supra, 411 U.S. at pp. 431-432 [ 36 L.Ed.2d at p. 373 ] [due process may bar criminal convictions if “outrageous” conduct by law enforcement officers]; cf. People v. Thoi (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 689, 695-697 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 789 ], and cases cited.) Assuming arguendo that the Russell doctrine applies in this state (but see Thoi, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 696 ), the mere use of underage decoys to enforce the liquor laws would not constitute outrageous conduct. 1994(See United States v. Russell supra, 411 U.S. at pp. 431-432 [ 36 L.Ed.2d at p. 373 ] [due process may bar criminal convictions if “outrageous” conduct by law enforcement officers]; cf. People v. Thoi (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 689, 695-697 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 789 ], and cases cited.) Assuming arguendo that the Russell doctrine applies in this state (but see Thoi, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 696 ), the mere use of underage decoys to enforce the liquor laws would not constitute outrageous conduct. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Pope
green
2 sentences1980People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at 426 .” It is first noted that the hearing on Russell’s motion to suppress evidence occurred February 13, 1979. 1980People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at 426 ." It is first noted that the hearing on Russell's motion to suppress evidence occurred February 13, 1979. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County
red
2 sentences1979Further, we are of the view that the reasoning underlying the court’s conclusion as to the admission of such evidence should appear to some degree in the record in order that the appellate review of that conclusion, which reaches only to abuses of the court’s discretion (Ballard v. Superior Court, supra, 64 Cal.2d 159, 174-175 ), may be facilitated.” (Italics in original.) Applying the Russell test to the facts at hand we note that Dr. Abe testified that L. was not suffering from any psychiatric disorder. 1979Further, we are of the view that the reasoning underlying the court’s conclusion as to the admission of such evidence should appear to some degree in the record in order that the appellate review of that conclusion, which reaches only to abuses of the court’s discretion (Ballard v. Superior Court, supra, 64 Cal.2d 159, 174-175 ), may be facilitated.” (Italics in original.) Applying the Russell test to the facts at hand we note that Dr. Abe testified that L. was not suffering from any psychiatric disorder. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Robinson v. McAbee
green
2 sentences1970Those cases clearly call for a division of illegal votes in proportion to legal votes when there is no evidence of how those votes were cast. [2] There can be no doubt, *128 however, that a voter's signature on a petition urging that an issue be put on the ballot so that a certain result may be obtained is circumstantial evidence which is admissible to show that he in fact voted in favor of that result. ( Robinson v. McAbee, supra, 64 Cal. App. at p. 718 .) Accordingly, the Russell rule is of no avail to respondents. 1970Those cases clearly call for a division of illegal votes in proportion to legal votes when there is no evidence of how those votes were cast. [2] There can be no doubt, *128 however, that a voter's signature on a petition urging that an issue be put on the ballot so that a certain result may be obtained is circumstantial evidence which is admissible to show that he in fact voted in favor of that result. ( Robinson v. McAbee, supra, 64 Cal. App. at p. 718 .) Accordingly, the Russell rule is of no avail to respondents. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.