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.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.green2 sentences2013(Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 , 63 P.3d 937 ].) The UCL “ ‘borrows’ violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices.” (29 Cal.4th at p. 1143.) Ramirez’s UCL claim is based on her allegation that Balboa violated the Rees-Levering Act by failing to comply with the Act’s requirement that an NOI contain the specific “conditions precedent” to reinstatement of her vehicle loan. (§ 2983.2, subd. (a)(2).) She sought to certify a class of individuals whose vehicles were repossessed by or su 2013(Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 , 63 P.3d 937 ].) The UCL “ ‘borrows’ violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices.” (29 Cal.4th at p. 1143.) Ramirez’s UCL claim is based on her allegation that Balboa violated the Rees-Levering Act by failing to comply with the Act’s requirement that an NOI contain the specific “conditions precedent” to reinstatement of her vehicle loan. (§ 2983.2, subd. (a)(2).) She sought to certify a class of individuals whose vehicles were repossessed by or su | 1 | 2 |
People v. Mesagreen1 sentence2025To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant “must establish his counsel’s representation fell below an objective 25 standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been different.” (People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007 (Mesa), citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 686–687.) “ ‘ “The burden of sustaining a charge of inadequate or ineffective representation is upon the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Middleton v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2011(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 701 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 ]; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ]; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 , 131 P.3d 995 ].) The alleged deficiency in the standard instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 *357 B. 2011(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 701 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 ]; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ]; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 , 131 P.3d 995 ].) The alleged deficiency in the standard instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 *357 B. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hugginsgreen2 sentences2011(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 701 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 ]; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ]; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 , 131 P.3d 995 ].) The alleged deficiency in the standard instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 *357 B. 2011(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 701 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 ]; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ]; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 , 131 P.3d 995 ].) The alleged deficiency in the standard instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 *357 B. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Letner and Tobingreen2 sentences2011(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 701 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 ]; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ]; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 , 131 P.3d 995 ].) The alleged deficiency in the standard instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 *357 B. 2011(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 158 L.Ed.2d 701 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 ]; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ]; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593 , 131 P.3d 995 ].) The alleged deficiency in the standard instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 22 *357 B. | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2003Under California law, a duty to protect the minor from a sexual assault does not exist unless it was reasonably foreseeable that this kind of harm could occur. ( Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1459 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 688 .) Although the law generally does not impose a duty on a defendant to control the conduct of another or to warn of such conduct, the special relationship that exists between a school district and its students may impose such a duty. ( Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 712, 715 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 823 .) However 2003Under California law, a duty to protect the minor from a sexual assault does not exist unless it was reasonably foreseeable that this kind of harm could occur. ( Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1459 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 688 .) Although the law generally does not impose a duty on a defendant to control the conduct of another or to warn of such conduct, the special relationship that exists between a school district and its students may impose such a duty. ( Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 712, 715 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 823 .) However | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Forrestgreen2 sentences1993(Bennett v. Forrest (1944) 24 Cal.2d 485, 491-492 [ 150 P.2d 416 ].) 5 As originally enacted in 1967, the ADEA designated the Secretary of Labor to bring actions to enforce it. 1993(Bennett v. Forrest (1944) 24 Cal.2d 485, 491-492 [ 150 P.2d 416 ].) 5 As originally enacted in 1967, the ADEA designated the Secretary of Labor to bring actions to enforce it. | 1 | 1 |
Bargioni v. Hillgreen2 sentences1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con 1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con | 1 | 1 |
Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighinogreen2 sentences1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con 1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con | 1 | 1 |
Kerrigan v. Maloofgreen2 sentences1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con 1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con | 1 | 1 |
Rochin v. Californiagreen2 sentences1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in 1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Flahertygreen2 sentences1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in 1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in | 1 | 1 |
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in 1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in | 1 | 1 |
Sokol v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in 1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in | 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. Thomas
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 356 .) “A single jury instruction may not be judged in isolation, but must be viewed in the context of all instructions given. [Citations.] The alleged deficiency in the standard [reasonable doubt] instruction given here was supplied by other instructions, which did expressly inform the jury that every element of the charged crimes and special circumstances had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Ibid.) Bertsch also contends, in yet another forfeited claim, that the giving of CALJIC No. 2.90 violated the equal protection clause of the federal Cons | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2025To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant “must establish his counsel’s representation fell below an objective 25 standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been different.” (People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007 (Mesa), citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 686–687.) “ ‘ “The burden of sustaining a charge of inadequate or ineffective representation is upon the defendant. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Life Savings Bank v. Wilhelm
green
2 sentences2003In Life Savings Bank v. Wilhelm (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 174 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 657 ] (Life Savings Bank), the court considered the characterization of the deficiency judgment in a different context and described the foreclosure and deficiency judgments as the products of separate actions. {Id. at pp. 178-179.) The creditor in Life Savings Bank missed the three-month filing deadline for requesting a deficiency hearing after the foreclosure sale. 2003In Life Savings Bank v. Wilhelm (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 174 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 657 ] (Life Savings Bank), the court considered the characterization of the deficiency judgment in a different context and described the foreclosure and deficiency judgments as the products of separate actions. {Id. at pp. 178-179.) The creditor in Life Savings Bank missed the three-month filing deadline for requesting a deficiency hearing after the foreclosure sale. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Leger v. Stockton Unified School District
green
2 sentences2003Under California law, a duty to protect the minor from a sexual assault does not exist unless it was reasonably foreseeable that this kind of harm could occur. ( Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1459 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 688 .) Although the law generally does not impose a duty on a defendant to control the conduct of another or to warn of such conduct, the special relationship that exists between a school district and its students may impose such a duty. ( Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 712, 715 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 823 .) However 2003Under California law, a duty to protect the minor from a sexual assault does not exist unless it was reasonably foreseeable that this kind of harm could occur. ( Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1459 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 688 .) Although the law generally does not impose a duty on a defendant to control the conduct of another or to warn of such conduct, the special relationship that exists between a school district and its students may impose such a duty. ( Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 712, 715 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 823 .) However | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cornelison v. Kornbluth
green
1 sentence1991(Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 601 ; Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 42 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ]; Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121, 123 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 ].) “[Section 580b], and the related sections passed at the same time, were intended to prevent creditors from buying in property for a nominal sum, after the debtor had defaulted, and then holding the defaulting debtor for a large deficiency judgment. [Citations.]” (Kerrigan v. Maloof (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ].) “ ‘Section 580b was apparently drafted in con | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Union Bank v. Gradsky
green
2 sentences1989Although the parties have not brought to our attention a California case dealing with a mortgage guaranty insurer who, having paid the claim of the lender after a nonjudicial foreclosure, seeks to obtain reimbursement for such payment from the debtor, we find the facts herein substantially similar in effect to those in Union Bank v. Gradsky (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 40 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 64 ], and conclude that the indemnity agreements herein are nothing more than attempts to recover a deficiency in violation of the antideficiency statute. 1989Although the parties have not brought to our attention a California case dealing with a mortgage guaranty insurer who, having paid the claim of the lender after a nonjudicial foreclosure, seeks to obtain reimbursement for such payment from the debtor, we find the facts herein substantially similar in effect to those in Union Bank v. Gradsky (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 40 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 64 ], and conclude that the indemnity agreements herein are nothing more than attempts to recover a deficiency in violation of the antideficiency statute. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Ramirez
green
1 sentence1985(Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ]; Rochin v. People of California (1952) 342 U.S. 165, 171-172 [ 96 L.Ed. 183, 189-190 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 ]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]; People v. Ramirez, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 268 ; Sokol v. Public Utilities Commission (1966) 65 Cal.2d 247, 254 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 418 P.2d 265 ].) Under the circumstances present here, the county’s refusal to provide a knowledgeable caseworker in attendance at the pretermination hearing resulted in | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Aday v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1985(See ante, p. 729, fn. 3.) It concludes, however, that the flaws should be ignored here because this is a capital case, maintaining that we have long followed the rule in death penalty appeals that "a technical insufficiency in the form of an objection will be disregarded and the entire record will be examined to determine if a miscarriage of justice resulted." ( Ibid. ) While it may be appropriate to be more solicitous of "technical insufficienc[ies]" in evidentiary objections in capital appeals, the inadequacy here cannot be dismissed as a mere "technical insufficiency." What the majority's | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.