11 California opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rosenkrantzgreen2 sentences2026(See In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 664 [Governor’s review of parole decision “gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law and because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate”].) 13 Additionally, while the trial court has no statutory authority to override a probation department’s determination that subdivision (b) criteria are not met, the probation department here explained its rati 2026(See In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 664 [Governor’s review of parole decision “gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law and because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate”].) 13 Additionally, while the trial court has no statutory authority to override a probation department’s determination that subdivision (b) criteria are not met, the probation department here explained its rati | 5 | 9 |
In re Shaputisgreen2 sentences2010We explained that both the Board and the Governor must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations (Regs., former § 2230 et seq.), and that “because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s [and the Board’s] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.” ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664.) Thus, a petitioner is entitled to a constitutionally adequate and meaningful review of a 2010We explained that both the Board and the Governor must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations (Regs., former § 2230 et seq.), and that "because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's [and the Board's] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate." ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) Thus, a petitioner is entitled to a constitutionally adequate and meaningful review of | 1 | 1 |
In re Lawrencegreen2 sentences2010We explained that both the Board and the Governor must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations (Regs., former § 2230 et seq.), and that “because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s [and the Board’s] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.” ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664.) Thus, a petitioner is entitled to a constitutionally adequate and meaningful review of a 2010We explained that both the Board and the Governor must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations (Regs., former § 2230 et seq.), and that "because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's [and the Board's] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate." ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) Thus, a petitioner is entitled to a constitutionally adequate and meaningful review of | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dannenberggreen2 sentences2010We explained that both the Board and the Governor must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations (Regs., former § 2230 et seq.), and that "because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's [and the Board's] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate." ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) Thus, a petitioner is entitled to a constitutionally adequate and meaningful review of 2010We explained that both the Board and the Governor must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations (Regs., former § 2230 et seq.), and that "because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's [and the Board's] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate." ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) Thus, a petitioner is entitled to a constitutionally adequate and meaningful review of | 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. Tenorio
green
2 sentences2026Section 1000.7 does not grant the probation department “unreviewable” discretion that may “be exercised in a totally arbitrary fashion both in individual cases and by the adoption of countywide policies . . . .” (People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 95 .) Instead, the probation department’s decision is “subject to judicial review at the proper time.” (Sledge, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 75 .) Practical considerations support the Legislature’s determination that this decision belongs to the probation department as an executive function. 2026Section 1000.7 does not grant the probation department “unreviewable” discretion that may “be exercised in a totally arbitrary fashion both in individual cases and by the adoption of countywide policies . . . .” (People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 95 .) Instead, the probation department’s decision is “subject to judicial review at the proper time.” (Sledge, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 75 .) Practical considerations support the Legislature’s determination that this decision belongs to the probation department as an executive function. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Sledge v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2026Section 1000.7 does not grant the probation department “unreviewable” discretion that may “be exercised in a totally arbitrary fashion both in individual cases and by the adoption of countywide policies . . . .” (People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 95 .) Instead, the probation department’s decision is “subject to judicial review at the proper time.” (Sledge, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 75 .) Practical considerations support the Legislature’s determination that this decision belongs to the probation department as an executive function. 2026Section 1000.7 does not grant the probation department “unreviewable” discretion that may “be exercised in a totally arbitrary fashion both in individual cases and by the adoption of countywide policies . . . .” (People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 95 .) Instead, the probation department’s decision is “subject to judicial review at the proper time.” (Sledge, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 75 .) Practical considerations support the Legislature’s determination that this decision belongs to the probation department as an executive function. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Shaputis
green
2 sentences2013(Shaputis II, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 210 .) The deputy commissioner failed to acknowledge that the three risk assessment tools used to measure petitioner’s current dangerousness all placed him in the low range for recidivism. 2013(Shaputis II, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 210 .) The failure of the deputy commissioner acknowledged that the three risk assessment tools used to measure petitioner‘s current dangerousness all placed him in the low range for recidivism. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Prather
green
2 sentences2013More recently, in Prather, supra, 50 Cal.4th 238 , the Supreme Court reiterated that the Board “must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations [citation], and that ‘because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s [and the Board’s] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.’ ” (Id. at p. 251, italics added, quoting Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) Nothing in Shaputis II 2013(In re Barker, at p. 370, fn. 21, citing Regs., § 2281, subd. (b).) More recently, in In re Prather, supra, 50 Cal.4th 238 , the Supreme Court reiterated that the Board ―must consider the statutory factors concerning parole suitability set forth in section 3041 as well as the Board regulations [citation], and that ‗because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor‘s [and the Board‘s] decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.‘ ‖ (Id. at p. 251, italics added, | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Elkins
green
2 sentences2007Because this requirement gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law, and because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.' ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664[, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 ].)" ( In re Elkins (2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 475, 488-489 , 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 503 ( Elkins ).) While the Governor must consider the same circumstances as the Board, the Governor may weigh them 2007Because this requirement gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law, and because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor's decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.' ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664[, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 , 59 P.3d 174 ].)" ( In re Elkins (2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 475, 488-489 , 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 503 ( Elkins ).) While the Governor must consider the same circumstances as the Board, the Governor may weigh them | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Scott
green
1 sentence2006Because this requirement gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law, and because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.” ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664.) “[T]he ‘some evidence’ standard is extremely deferential and reasonably cannot be compared to the standard of review involved in . . . considering whether substantial evidence supports the findings . . .” (id. at p. 665); n | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jeffrey J. Biggs v. Cal A. Terhune, Director of Wbs/jfm CDC California Board of Prison Terms Board of Prison Terms
green
1 sentence2006Because this requirement gives rise to a liberty interest protected by due process of law, and because due process of law requires that a decision considering such factors be supported by some evidence in the record, the Governor’s decision is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.” ( Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 663-664.) “[T]he ‘some evidence’ standard is extremely deferential and reasonably cannot be compared to the standard of review involved in . . . considering whether substantial evidence supports the findings . . .” (id. at p. 665); n | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Sturm
green
2 sentences2002As with decisions of the Board, the existence of this due process right cannot exist in any practical sense without a remedy against its abrogation. ( Sturm, supra, 11 Cal.3d 258, 269-270 , 113 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 521 P.2d 97 .) The Governor also contends that, because the executive branch is vested with the sole constitutional authority to execute a sentence once it has been imposed by the courts, the judiciary is precluded from interfering with the executive's parole decisions. 2002As with decisions of the Board, the existence of this due process right cannot exist in any practical sense without a remedy against its abrogation. ( Sturm, supra, 11 Cal.3d 258, 269-270 , 113 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 521 P.2d 97 .) The Governor also contends that, because the executive branch is vested with the sole constitutional authority to execute a sentence once it has been imposed by the courts, the judiciary is precluded from interfering with the executive's parole decisions. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.