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.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 4 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. Mooregreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1332 [trial court violated duty under section 1138 where answer “effectively told the jury the court could not help” and “improperly left the jury with the responsibility for deciding a question of law”].) 23 CALCRIM No. 3474, CALJIC No. 5.52.17 ( Thomas, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 144-145.) After holding that Thomas had waived this argument because he “himself requested the instructions as they were given,” the Court of Appeal went on to find no likelihood of confusion on the part of the jury, concluding that CALJIC No. 5.17 “is not a self-de 2026(See People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1332 [trial court violated duty under section 1138 where answer “effectively told the jury the court could not help” and “improperly left the jury with the responsibility for deciding a question of law”].) 23 CALCRIM No. 3474, CALJIC No. 5.52.17 ( Thomas, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 144-145.) After holding that Thomas had waived this argument because he “himself requested the instructions as they were given,” the Court of Appeal went on to find no likelihood of confusion on the part of the jury, concluding that CALJIC No. 5.17 “is not a self-de | 2 | 2 |
Keith v. Buchanangreen2 sentences1989(See Keith v. Buchanan (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 13, 22-23 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; Deering’s Ann. 1989(See Keith v. Buchanan (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 13, 22-23 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 392 ]; Deering’s Ann. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Medinagreen1 sentence2023(See People v. Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1045 .) Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law was “harmless in light of the correct instructions on the subject of [self-defense] that were given to the jury.” (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 760 [discussing prosecutorial misstatement on elements of second degree murder]; see also People v. Forrest (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1083 [“Even if the remarks concerning voluntary intoxication amounted to a misstatement of the law, the error was harmless” because the “trial court fully and correctly instructed the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2023(See People v. Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1045 .) Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law was “harmless in light of the correct instructions on the subject of [self-defense] that were given to the jury.” (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 760 [discussing prosecutorial misstatement on elements of second degree murder]; see also People v. Forrest (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1083 [“Even if the remarks concerning voluntary intoxication amounted to a misstatement of the law, the error was harmless” because the “trial court fully and correctly instructed the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Forrestgreen1 sentence2023(See People v. Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1045 .) Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law was “harmless in light of the correct instructions on the subject of [self-defense] that were given to the jury.” (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 760 [discussing prosecutorial misstatement on elements of second degree murder]; see also People v. Forrest (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1083 [“Even if the remarks concerning voluntary intoxication amounted to a misstatement of the law, the error was harmless” because the “trial court fully and correctly instructed the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Randlered1 sentence2023(See id. at p. 994.) Further, to the extent the prosecutor suggested that Galindo-Garcia’s anger was incompatible with a self-defense claim, this too was error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnny M.green2 sentences2010V Victim Restitution At all times relevant to this matter, former section 1202.4 provided in relevant part: “(a)(1) It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime. [][]... [f] (f) In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed 2010V Victim Restitution At all times relevant to this matter, former section 1202.4 provided in relevant part: “(a)(1) It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime. [][]... [f] (f) In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pompa-Ortizgreen2 sentences1993The purpose of the writ procedure is to provide a forum for a speedy pretrial challenge of irregularities so that “the matter can be expeditiously returned to the magistrate for proceedings free of the charged defects.” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ].) Section 999a requires a dissatisfied defendant to file a petition for a writ of prohibition within 15 days of the denial of the motion. 5 Just as a guilty or nolo contendere plea waives appellate review of “irregularities in the preliminary examination procedures which are not jurisdictional 1993The purpose of the writ procedure is to provide a forum for a speedy pretrial challenge of irregularities so that “the matter can be expeditiously returned to the magistrate for proceedings free of the charged defects.” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ].) Section 999a requires a dissatisfied defendant to file a petition for a writ of prohibition within 15 days of the denial of the motion. 5 Just as a guilty or nolo contendere plea waives appellate review of “irregularities in the preliminary examination procedures which are not jurisdictional | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark
green
2 sentences2019To begin with, there is no doubt that the payments would have provided evidence of the reasonable value of repairs: "The amount actually paid for repairs is some evidence of the reasonable value of necessary repairs." ( Smith v. Hill (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 374 , 388, 47 Cal.Rptr. 49 .) There is also no doubt the lack of evidence of the cost of repairs led to the court granting directed verdicts against appellants, as the trial court explicitly acknowledged, expressly finding sufficient evidence from which the jury could find liability, but granting the motions for directed verdicts for lack of 2019To begin with, there is no doubt that the payments would have provided evidence of the reasonable value of repairs: "The amount actually paid for repairs is some evidence of the reasonable value of necessary repairs." ( Smith v. Hill (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 374 , 388, 47 Cal.Rptr. 49 .) There is also no doubt the lack of evidence of the cost of repairs led to the court granting directed verdicts against appellants, as the trial court explicitly acknowledged, expressly finding sufficient evidence from which the jury could find liability, but granting the motions for directed verdicts for lack of | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Asdourian v. Araj
red
2 sentences2019To begin with, there is no doubt that the payments would have provided evidence of the reasonable value of repairs: "The amount actually paid for repairs is some evidence of the reasonable value of necessary repairs." ( Smith v. Hill (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 374 , 388, 47 Cal.Rptr. 49 .) There is also no doubt the lack of evidence of the cost of repairs led to the court granting directed verdicts against appellants, as the trial court explicitly acknowledged, expressly finding sufficient evidence from which the jury could find liability, but granting the motions for directed verdicts for lack of 2019To begin with, there is no doubt that the payments would have provided evidence of the reasonable value of repairs: "The amount actually paid for repairs is some evidence of the reasonable value of necessary repairs." ( Smith v. Hill (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 374 , 388, 47 Cal.Rptr. 49 .) There is also no doubt the lack of evidence of the cost of repairs led to the court granting directed verdicts against appellants, as the trial court explicitly acknowledged, expressly finding sufficient evidence from which the jury could find liability, but granting the motions for directed verdicts for lack of | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Smith v. Hill
green
2 sentences2019To begin with, there is no doubt that the payments would have provided evidence of the reasonable value of repairs: "The amount actually paid for repairs is some evidence of the reasonable value of necessary repairs." ( Smith v. Hill (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 374 , 388, 47 Cal.Rptr. 49 .) There is also no doubt the lack of evidence of the cost of repairs led to the court granting directed verdicts against appellants, as the trial court explicitly acknowledged, expressly finding sufficient evidence from which the jury could find liability, but granting the motions for directed verdicts for lack of 2019To begin with, there is no doubt that the payments would have provided evidence of the reasonable value of repairs: "The amount actually paid for repairs is some evidence of the reasonable value of necessary repairs." ( Smith v. Hill (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 374 , 388, 47 Cal.Rptr. 49 .) There is also no doubt the lack of evidence of the cost of repairs led to the court granting directed verdicts against appellants, as the trial court explicitly acknowledged, expressly finding sufficient evidence from which the jury could find liability, but granting the motions for directed verdicts for lack of | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025(Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 970 ; Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 735, 745 .) 4 shall “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts . . . .” And the leading California appellate practice guide instructs about this: “Before addressing the legal issues, your brief should accurately and fairly state the critical facts (including the evidence), free of bias; and likewise as to the applicable law. [Citation.] [¶] Misstatements, misrepresentations and/or material omissions of the relevant facts or law can instantly ‘undo’ an otherw | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron
green
1 sentence2025(Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 970 ; Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 735, 745 .) 4 shall “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts . . . .” And the leading California appellate practice guide instructs about this: “Before addressing the legal issues, your brief should accurately and fairly state the critical facts (including the evidence), free of bias; and likewise as to the applicable law. [Citation.] [¶] Misstatements, misrepresentations and/or material omissions of the relevant facts or law can instantly ‘undo’ an otherw | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2023(See People v. Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1045 .) Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law was “harmless in light of the correct instructions on the subject of [self-defense] that were given to the jury.” (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 760 [discussing prosecutorial misstatement on elements of second degree murder]; see also People v. Forrest (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1083 [“Even if the remarks concerning voluntary intoxication amounted to a misstatement of the law, the error was harmless” because the “trial court fully and correctly instructed the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Lam Thanh Nguyen
green
1 sentence2023(See People v. Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1045 .) Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law was “harmless in light of the correct instructions on the subject of [self-defense] that were given to the jury.” (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 760 [discussing prosecutorial misstatement on elements of second degree murder]; see also People v. Forrest (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1083 [“Even if the remarks concerning voluntary intoxication amounted to a misstatement of the law, the error was harmless” because the “trial court fully and correctly instructed the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Garamendi
green
1 sentence1994Co. v. Garamendi, supra, 790 F. Supp. at p. 948 .) (46) The superior court determined as well that the rate regulations as to rollbacks are invalid as applied to 20th Century, and that the 20th Century rate rollback order issued pursuant thereto is void, with respect to the treatment of the line of earthquake insurance. *322 This too is error. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Woodard
green
2 sentences1983(People v. Woodard (1979) 23 Cal.3d 329 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 536 , 590 P.2d 391 ].) 5 Article I, section 28, subdivision (f) states: “Use of Prior Convictions. 1983(People v. Woodard (1979) 23 Cal.3d 329 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 536 , 590 P.2d 391 ].) 5 Article I, section 28, subdivision (f) states: “Use of Prior Convictions. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.