11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kreutzer v. County of San Diegogreen2 sentences2014(See Kreutzer v. County of San Diego, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 70 [although county employee could be individually liable for deprivation of due process, the plaintiff’s claim against the county failed because he “did not allege the denial of his hearing was due to any policy, regulation, ordinance, or custom of the County . . . .”].) In her supplemental brief on this issue, Rivera points to the fact that the County mailed the second notice of termination in accordance with the MOU and the County’s rules and practices. 2014(See Kreutzer v. County of San Diego, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 70 [although county employee could be individually liable for deprivation of due process, the plaintiff’s claim against the county failed because he “did not allege the denial of his hearing was due to any policy, regulation, ordinance, or custom of the County . . . .”].) In her supplemental brief on this issue, Rivera points to the fact that the County mailed the second notice of termination in accordance with the MOU and the County’s rules and practices. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Popegreen2 sentences2013(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) 16 Ordinarily, “the proper way to raise an ineffective assistance claim is by writ of habeas corpus, not appeal.” (In re Eileen A., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1253 ; see also People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 .) Raising the matter in a habeas petition provides an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing where counsel can explain his or her reasons for acting or failing to act in the manner complained of. 1980A habeas corpus proceeding, on the other hand, provides an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing in which trial counsel may describe reasons for the challenged acts or omissions. ( People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ].) Since appellant has raised the same issues in both his appeal and habeas corpus petition, we shall treat them together. | 1 | 3 |
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences2022In Kelly, the United States Supreme Court considered “whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 255 [ 25 L.Ed.2d at p. 292 ].) The court 24 concluded an evidentiary hearing was required under such circumstances, where a recipient could personally appear to present evidence and confront or cross-examine adverse witn 2022In Kelly, the United States Supreme Court considered “whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 255 [ 25 L.Ed.2d at p. 292 ].) The court 24 concluded an evidentiary hearing was required under such circumstances, where a recipient could personally appear to present evidence and confront or cross-examine adverse witn | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)green1 sentence2014(Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 426 ; Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 581–582.) Indeed, as our high court explained in People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 201 (Zamudio), “ ‘There is simply no authority for the proposition that a trial court necessarily abuses its discretion, in a motion proceeding, by resolving evidentiary conflicts without hearing live testimony.’ [Citation.] [¶] . . . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mendoza Tellogreen1 sentence2013(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) 16 Ordinarily, “the proper way to raise an ineffective assistance claim is by writ of habeas corpus, not appeal.” (In re Eileen A., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1253 ; see also People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 .) Raising the matter in a habeas petition provides an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing where counsel can explain his or her reasons for acting or failing to act in the manner complained 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 |
|---|---|---|
Susag v. City of Lake Forest
green
1 sentence2021(See Susag v. City of Lake Forest (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1401 , 1410–1411.) The commission hearing offered 11 Verceles the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing with robust due process rights. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2021(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 961 .) “[O]nly after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for briefing may the superior court consider the record of conviction to determine whether the ‘the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief.’ (§ 1170.95, subd. (c).)” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 957 .) If so, the court must issue an order to show cause and provide the parties with an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. (§ 1170.95, subds. (c), (d).) There is no dispute that appellant met the pleading requirements and requested counsel. 2021(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 961 .) “[O]nly after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for briefing may the superior court consider the record of conviction to determine whether the ‘the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief.’ (§ 1170.95, subd. (c).)” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 957 .) If so, the court must issue an order to show cause and provide the parties with an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. (§ 1170.95, subds. (c), (d).) There is no dispute that appellant met the pleading requirements and requested counsel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Fosselman
green
1 sentence2014(Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 426 ; Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 581–582.) Indeed, as our high court explained in People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 201 (Zamudio), “ ‘There is simply no authority for the proposition that a trial court necessarily abuses its discretion, in a motion proceeding, by resolving evidentiary conflicts without hearing live testimony.’ [Citation.] [¶] . . . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Eileen A.
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) 16 Ordinarily, “the proper way to raise an ineffective assistance claim is by writ of habeas corpus, not appeal.” (In re Eileen A., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1253 ; see also People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 .) Raising the matter in a habeas petition provides an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing where counsel can explain his or her reasons for acting or failing to act in the manner complained of. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In re Lessard
green
2 sentences1986(See, e.g., In re Lessard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 497 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 583 , 399 P.2d 39 ].) And in habeas corpus proceedings the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing will allow defendant’s allegations to be more fully explored. 1986(See, e.g., In re Lessard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 497 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 583 , 399 P.2d 39 ].) And in habeas corpus proceedings the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing will allow defendant’s allegations to be more fully explored. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Royer v. State Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences1979Security (1978) 118 N.H. 673 [ 394 A.2d 828 ], the court holds that termination of unemployment insurance benefits without a prior evidentiary hearing violates the Social Security Act and the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. 5 Appellants rely heavily upon Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ], in which the Supreme Court held that due process does not require that the recipient of social security disability payments be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of benefits. 1979Security (1978) 118 N.H. 673 [ 394 A.2d 828 ], the court holds that termination of unemployment insurance benefits without a prior evidentiary hearing violates the Social Security Act and the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. 5 Appellants rely heavily upon Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ], in which the Supreme Court held that due process does not require that the recipient of social security disability payments be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of benefits. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences1979Security (1978) 118 N.H. 673 [ 394 A.2d 828 ], the court holds that termination of unemployment insurance benefits without a prior evidentiary hearing violates the Social Security Act and the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. 5 Appellants rely heavily upon Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ], in which the Supreme Court held that due process does not require that the recipient of social security disability payments be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of benefits. 1979Security (1978) 118 N.H. 673 [ 394 A.2d 828 ], the court holds that termination of unemployment insurance benefits without a prior evidentiary hearing violates the Social Security Act and the due process clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. 5 Appellants rely heavily upon Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ], in which the Supreme Court held that due process does not require that the recipient of social security disability payments be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of benefits. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Barnett v. Lindsay
green
1 sentence1972(See also, Daniel v. Goliday (1970) 398 U.S. 73 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 57 , 90 S.Ct. 1722 ].) Although one federal district court has interpreted Goldberg to require an evidentiary hearing whenever an application for a welfare benefit has been denied (Barnett v. Lindsay (D.C.Utah 1970) 319 F.Supp. 610, 612 ), we are not persuaded by the district court’s opinion that Goldberg is to be so interpreted. 3 In our view the necessity for an evidentiary hearing to deny an application for welfare benefits remains open. *933 Modern government offers its citizens a wide spectrum of benefits, including public emplo | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Daniel v. Goliday
green
2 sentences1972(See also, Daniel v. Goliday (1970) 398 U.S. 73 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 57 , 90 S.Ct. 1722 ].) Although one federal district court has interpreted Goldberg to require an evidentiary hearing whenever an application for a welfare benefit has been denied (Barnett v. Lindsay (D.C.Utah 1970) 319 F.Supp. 610, 612 ), we are not persuaded by the district court’s opinion that Goldberg is to be so interpreted. 3 In our view the necessity for an evidentiary hearing to deny an application for welfare benefits remains open. *933 Modern government offers its citizens a wide spectrum of benefits, including public emplo 1972(See also, Daniel v. Goliday (1970) 398 U.S. 73 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 57 , 90 S.Ct. 1722 ].) Although one federal district court has interpreted Goldberg to require an evidentiary hearing whenever an application for a welfare benefit has been denied (Barnett v. Lindsay (D.C.Utah 1970) 319 F.Supp. 610, 612 ), we are not persuaded by the district court’s opinion that Goldberg is to be so interpreted. 3 In our view the necessity for an evidentiary hearing to deny an application for welfare benefits remains open. *933 Modern government offers its citizens a wide spectrum of benefits, including public emplo | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.