decision establish a new rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

decision establish a new rule in California

12 California opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2018 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Guerragreen
cal · 1984 · cited in 10 California opinions naming this issue, 1985–2018
2 sentences

1985However, we must decide as a matter of first impression whether the Chapman rule is to be applied retroactively. 3 *786 The rules for determining the retroactivity of a California Supreme Court decision were most recently stated in People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ], as follows: “‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” {Ibid.) “To determine whether a decision should be given retroactive effect, the California courts first un

1985However, we must decide as a matter of first impression whether the Chapman rule is to be applied retroactively. 3 *786 The rules for determining the retroactivity of a California Supreme Court decision were most recently stated in People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ], as follows: “‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” {Ibid.) “To determine whether a decision should be given retroactive effect, the California courts first un

610
People v. Garciagreen
cal · 1984 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1984–1992
2 sentences

1992If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect “to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued (People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 394 ) . . . .” (Id. at p. 399, fn. 13; McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981-982 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ].)

1992If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect “to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued (People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 394 ) . . . .” (Id. at p. 399, fn. 13; McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981-982 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ].)

34
Donaldson v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1983 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1984–1985
2 sentences

1985If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . .; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises’ [i.e., the presumption of retroactivity applies] because there is no material change in the law. {Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary princ

1985If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . .; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises’ [i.e., the presumption of retroactivity applies] because there is no material change in the law. {Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary princ

22
United States v. Johnsonred
scotus · 1982 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1984–1985
2 sentences

1985If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . .; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises’ [i.e., the presumption of retroactivity applies] because there is no material change in the law. {Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary princ

1985If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . .; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises’ [i.e., the presumption of retroactivity applies] because there is no material change in the law. {Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary princ

22
People v. Watsongreen
· 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.] In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare decisis applies in all cases not yet final. ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ]

2011If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.] In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare decisis applies in all cases not yet final. ‘As a rule, judicial decisions apply “retroactively.” [Citation.] Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ]

11
McManigal v. City of Seal Beachgreen
calctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect “to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued (People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 394 ) . . . .” (Id. at p. 399, fn. 13; McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981-982 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ].)

1992If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive . . . ; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises,’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 690 P.2d 635 ].) An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect “to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued (People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 394 ) . . . .” (Id. at p. 399, fn. 13; McManigal v. City of Seal Beach (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 975, 981-982 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 733 ].)

11
Gallik v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

11
Mozzetti v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Mutch green
cal · 1971
2 sentences

2017If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive ... ; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]' [Citation.] An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect 'to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued ( [ ] Mutch [, supra ,] 4 Cal.3d [at p.] 394 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 721 , 482 P.2d 633 ] ) ....' [Citations.]" ( Id. at p. 794, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30 , 838 P.2d 758 .) In re Lindley (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709 , 177 P.2d 918 ( Lindley ).

2017If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive ... ; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]' [Citation.] An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect 'to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued ( [ ] Mutch [, supra ,] 4 Cal.3d [at p.] 394 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 721 , 482 P.2d 633 ] ) ....' [Citations.]" ( Id. at p. 794, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30 , 838 P.2d 758 .) In re Lindley (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709 , 177 P.2d 918 ( Lindley ).

21992–2017
Woosley v. State of California green
cal · 1992
2 sentences

2017Our Supreme Court reiterated the same principle more recently in Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 758 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30 , 838 P.2d 758 : " 'To determine whether a decision should be given retroactive effect, the California courts first undertake a threshold inquiry: does the decision establish a new rule of law?

2017Our Supreme Court reiterated the same principle more recently in Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 758 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30 , 838 P.2d 758 : " 'To determine whether a decision should be given retroactive effect, the California courts first undertake a threshold inquiry: does the decision establish a new rule of law?

12017–2017
In Re Lindley green
cal · 1947
2 sentences

2017If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive ... ; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]' [Citation.] An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect 'to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued ( [ ] Mutch [, supra ,] 4 Cal.3d [at p.] 394 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 721 , 482 P.2d 633 ] ) ....' [Citations.]" ( Id. at p. 794, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30 , 838 P.2d 758 .) In re Lindley (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709 , 177 P.2d 918 ( Lindley ).

2017If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive ... ; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]' [Citation.] An example of a decision which does not establish a new rule of law is one in which we give effect 'to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued ( [ ] Mutch [, supra ,] 4 Cal.3d [at p.] 394 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 721 , 482 P.2d 633 ] ) ....' [Citations.]" ( Id. at p. 794, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 30 , 838 P.2d 758 .) In re Lindley (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709 , 177 P.2d 918 ( Lindley ).

12017–2017
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital green
cal · 1984
2 sentences

1985If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, . . .; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Among the examples recited in Guerra of decisions that do not establish a new rule of law for purposes of retroactivity are those “in which [the court] gave effect to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued [citation] or had not definitively addressed [citation] . . . .” (Id., at p. 399, fn. 13.) The Supreme Court also discussed the retroactivity of opinions interpreting statutes in P

1985If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, . . .; but if it does not, ‘no question of retroactivity arises’ because there is no material change in the law. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Among the examples recited in Guerra of decisions that do not establish a new rule of law for purposes of retroactivity are those “in which [the court] gave effect to a statutory rule that the courts had theretofore misconstrued [citation] or had not definitively addressed [citation] . . . .” (Id., at p. 399, fn. 13.) The Supreme Court also discussed the retroactivity of opinions interpreting statutes in P

11985–1985
People v. Superior Court green
cal · 1970
2 sentences

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

11984–1984
Solem v. Stumes green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

1984If it does, the new rule may or may not be retroactive, as we discuss below; but if it does not, "no question of retroactivity arises," because there is no material change in the law. ( Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24, 36 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ] [plur. opn.]; People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 547-548 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; United States v. Johnson (1982) 457 U.S. 537, 549 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 202, 213-214 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 ].) In that event the decision simply becomes part of the body of case law of this state, and under ordinary principles of stare de

11984–1984

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check