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 1 courts 1971–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
East Side Union High School District v. Whittle Communications, L. P.green2 sentences2025(See id. at p. 391; see also Dawson v. East Side Union High School Dist. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 998, 1043 [injunction unnecessary where no evidence of recurrence].) Here, when the trial court stated at the post-trial hearing that the Attorney General “argued in [his] motion that [he] want[ed] to be able to use [12599.6](f)(2) in future actions against other parties,” the Deputy Attorney General responded: “[T]hat is something that will have to be reviewed and considered by the Attorney General.” Later, when the trial court stated the Attorney General intended to “go after” the Salvation Army, t 2025(See id. at p. 391; see also Dawson v. East Side Union High School Dist. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 998, 1043 [injunction unnecessary where no evidence of recurrence].) Here, when the trial court stated at the post-trial hearing that the Attorney General “argued in [his] motion that [he] want[ed] to be able to use [12599.6](f)(2) in future actions against other parties,” the Deputy Attorney General responded: “[T]hat is something that will have to be reviewed and considered by the Attorney General.” Later, when the trial court stated the Attorney General intended to “go after” the Salvation Army, t | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Forcadesgreen2 sentences2014Code (2011 ed.) foll. § 500, p. 310; see Williams v. Forcades (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 23, 24 .) Evidence Code section 521 states: “The party claiming that a person did not exercise a requisite degree of care has the burden of proof on that issue.” Although the trial court did not initially give such an instruction, it caught the omission during the argument phase of the trial and instructed the jury with CACI No. 470 that White was required to prove that Barkus had been negligent and that his negligence contributed to his death.4 Accordingly, there was no error. 4 Appellant designated as part of 2014Code (2011 ed.) foll. § 500, p. 310; see Williams v. Forcades (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 23, 24 .) Evidence Code section 521 states: “The party claiming that a person did not exercise a requisite degree of care has the burden of proof on that issue.” Although the trial court did not initially give such an instruction, it caught the omission during the argument phase of the trial and instructed the jury with CACI No. 470 that White was required to prove that Barkus had been negligent and that his negligence contributed to his death.4 Accordingly, there was no error. 4 Appellant designated as part of | 2 | 2 |
People v. Blackshergreen1 sentence2023Sufficient evidence supports the court’s finding. 17 “‘The criminal trial of a mentally incompetent person violates due process. [Citation.] However, a defendant is not incompetent if he can understand the nature of the legal proceedings and assist counsel in conducting a defense in a rational manner. ([Citation]; § 1367.)’ [Citation.] A defendant is presumed competent unless the contrary is proven by a preponderance of the evidence by the party contending he or she is incompetent. [Citing, inter alia, § 1369, subd. (f) & Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.130(e)(2).]” (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Wagnergreen1 sentence2016(See Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 249, 259 [appellant forfeited argument that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to provide transcript of hearing on motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), or court’s minute order denying the motion].) The Landlords contend they “know[] of no other records that should have been designated.” If, by this statement, they mean that the original statement of decision, the post-trial hearing on the Bank’s objections, and the order after the post-trial hearing on the Bank’s objections contained no relevant rulings or | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacintogreen2 sentences2011After his conviction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on these constitutional grounds because two persons were deported by the government before trial (Valenzuela-Bernal, at p. 860), the high court reversed, concluding that a violation of the due process or compulsory process clauses of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, respectively, was not established because there was no showing of prejudice to the defendant, i.e., “some showing that the evidence lost would be both material and favorable to the defense.” (Valenzuela-Bernal, at p. 873; see also People v. Jacinto (2010) 49 C 2011After his conviction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on these constitutional grounds because two persons were deported by the government before trial (Valenzuela-Bernal, at p. 860), the high court reversed, concluding that a violation of the due process or compulsory process clauses of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, respectively, was not established because there was no showing of prejudice to the defendant, i.e., “some showing that the evidence lost would be both material and favorable to the defense.” (Valenzuela-Bernal, at p. 873; see also People v. Jacinto (2010) 49 C | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Reza Sedigh and William D. Brooks, Defendants-Apellantsgreen1 sentence1989This section provides that the agency seeking to withhold a public record must demonstrate that “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” Our holding also is consistent with the practice of federal courts, where a party must make a preliminary showing of juror misconduct in order to obtain a hearing thereon. “[A] trial court is required to hold a post-trial hearing only when reasonable grounds for investigation exist. . . . ffl] [W]here no foundation has been establi | 1 | 1 |
Rushen v. Spaingreen2 sentences1988The high court noted that the prejudicial effect of such a communication “can normally be determined by a post-trial hearing.” (Id., 464 U.S. at p. 119 [ 78 L.Ed.2d at p. 274 ].) It then concluded that the posttrial hearing which occurred established beyond a reasonable doubt that the communication at issue did not affect the jury’s deliberations. 1988The high court noted that the prejudicial effect of such a communication “can normally be determined by a post-trial hearing.” (Id., 464 U.S. at p. 119 [ 78 L.Ed.2d at p. 274 ].) It then concluded that the posttrial hearing which occurred established beyond a reasonable doubt that the communication at issue did not affect the jury’s deliberations. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
green
2 sentences2011The trial judge expressly so found. [Citation.] [][] Therefore, the prosecutors’ failure to disclose [the juror’s] job application, although requiring a post-trial hearing on juror bias, did not deprive respondent of the fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.” (Id. at pp. 220-221.) In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal (1982) 458 U.S. 858 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 , 102 S.Ct. 3440 ] (Valenzuela-Bernal), the Supreme Court considered whether the defendant, convicted of knowing transportation of illegal aliens, was deprived of due process and his right to compulsory process of witnesses under t 2011The trial judge expressly so found. [Citation.] [][] Therefore, the prosecutors’ failure to disclose [the juror’s] job application, although requiring a post-trial hearing on juror bias, did not deprive respondent of the fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.” (Id. at pp. 220-221.) In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal (1982) 458 U.S. 858 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 , 102 S.Ct. 3440 ] (Valenzuela-Bernal), the Supreme Court considered whether the defendant, convicted of knowing transportation of illegal aliens, was deprived of due process and his right to compulsory process of witnesses under t | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. DiNorscio
green
1 sentence1989This section provides that the agency seeking to withhold a public record must demonstrate that “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” Our holding also is consistent with the practice of federal courts, where a party must make a preliminary showing of juror misconduct in order to obtain a hearing thereon. “[A] trial court is required to hold a post-trial hearing only when reasonable grounds for investigation exist. . . . ffl] [W]here no foundation has been establi | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Brantley
green
1 sentence1989This section provides that the agency seeking to withhold a public record must demonstrate that “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” Our holding also is consistent with the practice of federal courts, where a party must make a preliminary showing of juror misconduct in order to obtain a hearing thereon. “[A] trial court is required to hold a post-trial hearing only when reasonable grounds for investigation exist. . . . ffl] [W]here no foundation has been establi | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Alan Louis Chavis and Lambert Daniel Slisz
green
1 sentence1989(United States v. Chavis (5th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 100, 110 ; Smith v. Cupp (9th Cir. 1972) 457 F.2d 1018, 1100 ; United States v. Moten, supra, 582 F.2d at p. 665 .) Requiring a preliminary showing does not preclude a defendant from uncovering jury misconduct. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Frank Moten
green
1 sentence1989(United States v. Chavis (5th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 100, 110 ; Smith v. Cupp (9th Cir. 1972) 457 F.2d 1018, 1100 ; United States v. Moten, supra, 582 F.2d at p. 665 .) Requiring a preliminary showing does not preclude a defendant from uncovering jury misconduct. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Pope
green
1 sentence1984A post-trial hearing is where it may be determined whether “. . . counsel’s omissions resulted from an informed tactical choice within the range of reasonable competence . . . .” {People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) The record developed at the new trial motion demonstrates numerous witnesses (1) claim to have observed the robbery in a light which casts doubt *1060 upon the prosecution theory and enhances the defense; (2) were willing to be interviewed by the defense; (3) were not interviewed nor called at trial. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Greenberg v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1971Analytical examination of the rule permitting post-trial appellate review of the probable cause issue would commence with the 1897 decision in People v. Simmons, supra; would move to the 19.09 amendment of Penal Code section 1259, excluding review on appeal of “any intermediate order” and restricting review to things done “at the trial or prior to or after judgment . . .” (see People v. Fernandez, supra); would then consider the 1939 and 1949 amendments of section 995, giving statutory recognition to pretrial motions in the superior court raising a claimed lack of probable cause for indictment 1971Analytical examination of the rule permitting post-trial appellate review of the probable cause issue would commence with the 1897 decision in People v. Simmons, supra; would move to the 19.09 amendment of Penal Code section 1259, excluding review on appeal of “any intermediate order” and restricting review to things done “at the trial or prior to or after judgment . . .” (see People v. Fernandez, supra); would then consider the 1939 and 1949 amendments of section 995, giving statutory recognition to pretrial motions in the superior court raising a claimed lack of probable cause for indictment | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.