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.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2001 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Shaundra L.green2 sentences1995A discussion of the amendments and the rule 39.IB procedures is presented in In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 306-316 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 299 ], All statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1995A discussion of the amendments and the rule 39.IB procedures is presented in In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 306-316 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 299 ], All statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. | 4 | 4 |
Rice v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2001(See Rice v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 431, 447-448 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 579 P.2d 476 , 96 A.L.R.3d 613 ].) Among other things, article XX, section 22 of our state’s Constitution, establishes the Department and grants it authority over the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages, in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature. 2001(See Rice v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 431, 447-448 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 579 P.2d 476 , 96 A.L.R.3d 613 ].) Among other things, article XX, section 22 of our state’s Constitution, establishes the Department and grants it authority over the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages, in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hoffardgreen2 sentences2000(See, e.g., Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1178, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 899 P.2d 896 [citing Ribero for its due process discussion]; Jones, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1112 fn. 5, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 , 898 P.2d 910 [citing Ribero for its discussion of the amendments to rule 31(d) and for general recognition that relief from default may be available].) Citation of a case for one proposition does not constitute endorsement of other propositions in that decision. 2000(See, e.g., Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1178, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 899 P.2d 896 [citing Ribero for its due process discussion]; Jones, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1112 fn. 5, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 , 898 P.2d 910 [citing Ribero for its discussion of the amendments to rule 31(d) and for general recognition that relief from default may be available].) Citation of a case for one proposition does not constitute endorsement of other propositions in that decision. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Court (Williams)green2 sentences1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud 1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud | 1 | 1 |
Wilburn v. Oakland Hospitalgreen2 sentences1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud 1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud | 1 | 1 |
Sadler v. Turnergreen2 sentences1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud 1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud | 1 | 1 |
People v. Acostagreen2 sentences1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction 1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction | 1 | 1 |
People v. Casillasgreen2 sentences1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction 1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Union Bank v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1999In the case of Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 ] (Union Bank), Presiding Justice Turner concluded that “[t]he fact that the Legislature chose not to utilize the term ‘negate’ reflects an intention to change the long-standing duty of a moving defendant.” (Id. at pp. 586-587, fn. 8.) However, the court in Union Bank also expressly declined to decide whether the Legislature had “intended to adopt the Celotex . . . test” (ibid.) and limited its opinion to an assessment of the effect of the amendments on the rule of Barnes v. Blue Haven Pools, supra, 1 Ca 1999In the case of Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 ] (Union Bank), Presiding Justice Turner concluded that “[t]he fact that the Legislature chose not to utilize the term ‘negate’ reflects an intention to change the long-standing duty of a moving defendant.” (Id. at pp. 586-587, fn. 8.) However, the court in Union Bank also expressly declined to decide whether the Legislature had “intended to adopt the Celotex . . . test” (ibid.) and limited its opinion to an assessment of the effect of the amendments on the rule of Barnes v. Blue Haven Pools, supra, 1 Ca | 2 | 1995–1999 |
Barnes v. Blue Haven Pools
green
2 sentences1999In the case of Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 ] (Union Bank), Presiding Justice Turner concluded that “[t]he fact that the Legislature chose not to utilize the term ‘negate’ reflects an intention to change the long-standing duty of a moving defendant.” (Id. at pp. 586-587, fn. 8.) However, the court in Union Bank also expressly declined to decide whether the Legislature had “intended to adopt the Celotex . . . test” (ibid.) and limited its opinion to an assessment of the effect of the amendments on the rule of Barnes v. Blue Haven Pools, supra, 1 Ca 1995The Court of Appeal concluded that “[t]he fact that the Legislature chose not to utilize the term ‘negate’ reflects an intention to change the long-standing duty of a moving defendant” (31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 586-587, fn. 8), but expressly declined to decide whether the Legislature had “intended to adopt the Celotex Corp. test” (ibid.) and carefully limited itself to an assessment of the effect of the amendments on the rule of its own earlier decision, in Barnes v. Blue Haven Pools (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 123 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 444 ], that (as restated in Union Bank) "... a. moving defendant cannot sec | 2 | 1995–1999 |
People v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction 1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction | 2 | 1964–1973 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2000(See, e.g., Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1178, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 899 P.2d 896 [citing Ribero for its due process discussion]; Jones, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1112 fn. 5, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 , 898 P.2d 910 [citing Ribero for its discussion of the amendments to rule 31(d) and for general recognition that relief from default may be available].) Citation of a case for one proposition does not constitute endorsement of other propositions in that decision. 2000(See, e.g., Hoffard, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1178, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 827 , 899 P.2d 896 [citing Ribero for its due process discussion]; Jones, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1112 fn. 5, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 , 898 P.2d 910 [citing Ribero for its discussion of the amendments to rule 31(d) and for general recognition that relief from default may be available].) Citation of a case for one proposition does not constitute endorsement of other propositions in that decision. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Benoit
green
2 sentences2000While rule 31 no longer permits appellate courts to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, relief from the time limit for filing a notice of appeal is nevertheless available to incarcerated individuals under the principle of constructive filing. ( In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 84 , 109 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 514 P.2d 97 ["constructive filing ... embodies nothing more than a basis for judicial acceptance of an excuse for the appellant's delay in order to do justice"].) Sturns contends that the constructive filing doctrine is the equivalent of the standard applicable under former rule 31 2000While rule 31 no longer permits appellate courts to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, relief from the time limit for filing a notice of appeal is nevertheless available to incarcerated individuals under the principle of constructive filing. ( In re Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 84 , 109 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 514 P.2d 97 ["constructive filing ... embodies nothing more than a basis for judicial acceptance of an excuse for the appellant's delay in order to do justice"].) Sturns contends that the constructive filing doctrine is the equivalent of the standard applicable under former rule 31 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
JOYCE G. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1998Since the Legislature knows how to provide for an appeal when it intends to do so, it would be anomalous to declare the order setting a section 366.26 hearing ‘not appealable at anytime’ and yet in the same statute create a new, unprecedented procedure for review that is virtually indistinguishable from an appeal.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511 , fn. omitted.) The amendments to rule 39.IB, purporting to mandate in all procedurally regular writ matters creation of a cause and disposition on the merits by written opinion conflict with section 366.26, and hence are unconstitutional “ ‘since the Jud | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Del Campo
green
2 sentences1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction 1973The appellate courts remained without jurisdiction to consider late appeals until 1961. ( In re Del Campo (1961) 55 Cal.2d 816 [ 13 Cal. Rptr. 192 , 361 P.2d 912 ].) [7] In 1961 — so the argument continues — rule 31(a) of the California Rules of Court, which specified that a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 10 days after judgment, was amended to include provision for late filing. [8] In People v. Casillas (1964) 61 Cal.2d 344, 345-346 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ], this court held that "[u]nder the amendments to rule 31(a) ... the reviewing court has jurisdiction | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.