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 1970–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sorianogreen2 sentences2009(See People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 785 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ] [‘where fundamental jurisdiction is lacking, it cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel’].) Because Wallace’s plea to a violation of section 422.7 is a legal nullity, the judgment must be reversed.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) Significantly, the appellate court’s order in Wallace was to vacate the defendant’s plea, to order the dismissed counts reinstated, and to remand the matter “for plea or trial, as appropriate.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) 2. 2009(See People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 785 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ] [‘where fundamental jurisdiction is lacking, it cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel’].) Because Wallace’s plea to a violation of section 422.7 is a legal nullity, the judgment must be reversed.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) Significantly, the appellate court’s order in Wallace was to vacate the defendant’s plea, to order the dismissed counts reinstated, and to remand the matter “for plea or trial, as appropriate.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) 2. | 2 | 3 |
Allen v. City of Sacramentogreen1 sentence2023The general rule “ ‘ “is that points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before.” ’ ” (Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764 ; accord, Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 .) In any event, none of these matters would establish the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the expert gang evidence. 14 issues, or of misleading the jury.” (Evid. | 1 | 1 |
Nancy B. v. Charlotte M.green1 sentence2016Since his brief contains no argument directed to the appeal from the order, it must be deemed abandoned."]; Adoption of Mathew B. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1239, 1267, fn. 16 .) For this reason alone, Wallace's challenge here is without merit. 4 Yet, even if Wallace challenged the denial of his Romero motion, his claim would fare no better. | 1 | 1 |
Keating v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1986(Wallace’s burden, however, to show waiver of arbitration, will be a heavy one; see, e.g., Keating v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 584, 604 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 645 P.2d 1192 ].) Because it is not clear whether the order denying arbitration is entirely correct (in light of the possibility Farmers may demand arbitration of arbitrable issues), we affirm the order insofar as it denies arbitration of the issues of policy stacking and amount of coverage, and remand the matter for further proceedings in the superior court in light of the views we have expressed here. 1986(Wallace’s burden, however, to show waiver of arbitration, will be a heavy one; see, e.g., Keating v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 584, 604 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 645 P.2d 1192 ].) Because it is not clear whether the order denying arbitration is entirely correct (in light of the possibility Farmers may demand arbitration of arbitrable issues), we affirm the order insofar as it denies arbitration of the issues of policy stacking and amount of coverage, and remand the matter for further proceedings in the superior court in light of the views we have expressed here. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brawleygreen2 sentences1970(People v. Brawley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 277, 292 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 461 P.2d 361 ].) In the present case, in denying Wallace’s motion for severance, the trial court noted that no prejudice would arise from the fact of a joint trial, and, as appeared in the trial itself, the court was right. 1970(People v. Brawley (1969) 1 Cal.3d 277, 292 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 461 P.2d 361 ].) In the present case, in denying Wallace’s motion for severance, the trial court noted that no prejudice would arise from the fact of a joint trial, and, as appeared in the trial itself, the court was right. | 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. Steskal
green
1 sentence2026Our high court “ha[s] long held that a prosecutor may make ‘ “comments based upon the state of the evidence or upon the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call anticipated witnesses.” ’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 351 ; id. at p. 351 [prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct by commenting on the defense’s failure to call a witness].) And “[w]hile it is true that neither side is required to produce certain evidence, it is common for both sides to comment on the absence of potentially available evidence. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Rushing
green
1 sentence2023As set forth below, we agree with the Attorney General that substantial evidence supports a conclusion that Wallace constructively possessed these items.2 In analyzing this claim, “ ‘ “ ‘we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] In conducting such a review, we “ ‘presume[ ] in support of the judgment the existence of every f | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Reichardt v. Hoffman
green
1 sentence2023The general rule “ ‘ “is that points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before.” ’ ” (Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764 ; accord, Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 .) In any event, none of these matters would establish the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the expert gang evidence. 14 issues, or of misleading the jury.” (Evid. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Valerio
green
1 sentence2023As set forth below, we agree with the Attorney General that substantial evidence supports a conclusion that Wallace constructively possessed these items.2 In analyzing this claim, “ ‘ “ ‘we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] In conducting such a review, we “ ‘presume[ ] in support of the judgment the existence of every f | 1 | 2023–2023 |
The People v. Harris
green
2 sentences2023As set forth below, we agree with the Attorney General that substantial evidence supports a conclusion that Wallace constructively possessed these items.2 In analyzing this claim, “ ‘ “ ‘we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] In conducting such a review, we “ ‘presume[ ] in support of the judgment the existence of every f 2023As set forth below, we agree with the Attorney General that substantial evidence supports a conclusion that Wallace constructively possessed these items.2 In analyzing this claim, “ ‘ “ ‘we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] In conducting such a review, we “ ‘presume[ ] in support of the judgment the existence of every f | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
2 sentences2016We review an assertion that the court erred in denying a Romero motion under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. ( Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497 at p. 532 .) There is no evidence in this record of an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion by the court. 2016We review an assertion that the court erred in denying a Romero motion under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. ( Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497 at p. 532 .) There is no evidence in this record of an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion by the court. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Wallace
green
1 sentence2014The Wallace defendant had been shackled to the courtroom floor during his murder trial after being cited for numerous behavioral infractions at the county jail. ( Wallace, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1049-1050.) The defendant’s misconduct included fighting and possession of illegal razors. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Wallace
green
2 sentences2009(See People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 785 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ] [‘where fundamental jurisdiction is lacking, it cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel’].) Because Wallace’s plea to a violation of section 422.7 is a legal nullity, the judgment must be reversed.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) Significantly, the appellate court’s order in Wallace was to vacate the defendant’s plea, to order the dismissed counts reinstated, and to remand the matter “for plea or trial, as appropriate.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) 2. 2009(See People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 785 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 138 ] [‘where fundamental jurisdiction is lacking, it cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel’].) Because Wallace’s plea to a violation of section 422.7 is a legal nullity, the judgment must be reversed.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) Significantly, the appellate court’s order in Wallace was to vacate the defendant’s plea, to order the dismissed counts reinstated, and to remand the matter “for plea or trial, as appropriate.” (Wallace, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1704 .) 2. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1991These factors are essentially the same as those required by California law for equitable relief based on extrinsic mistake: “first the defaulted party must show that it has a meritorious case; secondly it must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action; and lastly it must demonstrate that it was diligent in seeking to set aside the default once it had been discovered.” (Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co., supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at p. 738 .) The People assert that Wallace’s motion and the court’s ruling were based on Code of Civil Procedure sectio | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.