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 2014–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2025(Clark, at p. 617; Emanuel, at p. 884.) Acknowledging the overlap between the major participant and reckless indifference elements ( Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 614-615), our high court set forth the following list of nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life: (1) a defendant’s knowledge of weapons, and use and number of weapons; (2) a defendant’s physical presence at the crime and opportunities to restrain the crime and/or aid the victim; (3) the duration of the felony; (4) a defendant’s knowledge of the cohort’ 2024(People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 802 .) The ultimate question “is ‘whether the defendant’s participation “in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death” [citation] was sufficiently significant to be considered “major.” ’ ” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 611 .) Our Supreme Court identified the following list of nonexclusive factors to consider when analyzing whether a defendant acted as a major participant: (1) “ ‘What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths?’ ”; (2) “ ‘What role did the defendant have in suppl | 1 | 5 |
People v. Banksgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 802 .) The ultimate question “is ‘whether the defendant’s participation “in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death” [citation] was sufficiently significant to be considered “major.” ’ ” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 611 .) Our Supreme Court identified the following list of nonexclusive factors to consider when analyzing whether a defendant acted as a major participant: (1) “ ‘What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths?’ ”; (2) “ ‘What role did the defendant have in suppl 2024(People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 802 .) The ultimate question “is ‘whether the defendant’s participation “in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death” [citation] was sufficiently significant to be considered “major.” ’ ” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 611 .) Our Supreme Court identified the following list of nonexclusive factors to consider when analyzing whether a defendant acted as a major participant: (1) “ ‘What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths?’ ”; (2) “ ‘What role did the defendant have in suppl | 1 | 4 |
In Re Esperanza C.green1 sentence2014(See, e.g., In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054 [“placement of a child with a relative has the potential to alter the juvenile court’s determination of the child’s best interests and the appropriate permanency plan for the child, and may affect a parent’s interest in his or her legal status with respect to the child”].) We note that only E.V. has appeared as a respondent; the Department has not taken a position on appeal. 10 “‘Preferential consideration’ means that the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated.” (§ 361.3, subd. ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tison v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2020(Id. at p. 800, citing Tison, supra, 481 U.S. at p. 149 .) At the other extreme is the actual killer or an aider and abettor who intended to kill—who are eligible for such punishment. ( Banks, supra, at p. 800 , citing Tison at p. 150 .) “The defendants’ actions in [Tison,] supra, 481 U.S. 137 and Enmund v. Florida [(1982)] 458 U.S. 782 represent points on [the] continuum. [Citation.] Somewhere between them . . . lies the constitutional minimum for death eligibility.” ( Banks, supra, at p. 802 .) 7 To aid the determination of where to place a particular defendant on that continuum, Banks provi 2020(Id. at p. 800, citing Tison, supra, 481 U.S. at p. 149 .) At the other extreme is the actual killer or an aider and abettor who intended to kill—who are eligible for such punishment. ( Banks, supra, at p. 800 , citing Tison at p. 150 .) “The defendants’ actions in [Tison,] supra, 481 U.S. 137 and Enmund v. Florida [(1982)] 458 U.S. 782 represent points on [the] continuum. [Citation.] Somewhere between them . . . lies the constitutional minimum for death eligibility.” ( Banks, supra, at p. 802 .) 7 To aid the determination of where to place a particular defendant on that continuum, Banks provi | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Troy J. Lenz v. Yellow Transportation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Significantly, however, such attempts at distilling the case law have not indicated that the crossing of state lines by the employee is a requirement, but rather those courts have simply listed a number of factors to be considered, such as the following enumeration: "[F]irst, whether the employee works in the transportation industry; second, whether the employee is directly responsible for transporting the goods in interstate commerce; third, whether the employee handles goods that travel interstate; fourth, whether the employee supervises employees who are themselves transportation workers, s 2019Significantly, however, such attempts at distilling the case law have not indicated that the crossing of state lines by the employee is a requirement, but rather those courts have simply listed a number of factors to be considered, such as the following enumeration: “[F]irst, whether the employee works in the transportation industry; second, whether the employee is directly responsible for transporting the goods in interstate commerce; third, whether the employee handles goods that travel interstate; fourth, whether the employee supervises employees who are themselves transportation workers, s | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Cravens
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 507 .) In Banks, our Supreme Court addressed under what circumstances an accomplice who lacks the intent to kill may qualify as a major participant under section 190.2, setting forth a list of nonexclusive factors to consider: “What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Enmund v. Florida
green
1 sentence2020(Id. at p. 800, citing Tison, supra, 481 U.S. at p. 149 .) At the other extreme is the actual killer or an aider and abettor who intended to kill—who are eligible for such punishment. ( Banks, supra, at p. 800 , citing Tison at p. 150 .) “The defendants’ actions in [Tison,] supra, 481 U.S. 137 and Enmund v. Florida [(1982)] 458 U.S. 782 represent points on [the] continuum. [Citation.] Somewhere between them . . . lies the constitutional minimum for death eligibility.” ( Banks, supra, at p. 802 .) 7 To aid the determination of where to place a particular defendant on that continuum, Banks provi | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc . (2003) 539 U.S. 52 , at page 56, 123 S.Ct. 2037 , 156 L.Ed.2d 46 , the term "involving commerce" in the FAA is "the functional equivalent of the more familiar term 'affecting commerce' - words of art that ordinarily signal the broadest permissible exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power." A few federal courts have attempted to synthesize the case law into a list of nonexclusive factors to assist in determining whether an employee fits within the section 1 exemption. 2019As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc . (2003) 539 U.S. 52 , at page 56, 123 S.Ct. 2037 , 156 L.Ed.2d 46 , the term "involving commerce" in the FAA is "the functional equivalent of the more familiar term 'affecting commerce' - words of art that ordinarily signal the broadest permissible exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power." A few federal courts have attempted to synthesize the case law into a list of nonexclusive factors to assist in determining whether an employee fits within the section 1 exemption. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.
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.