78 California opinions name it 3 courts 1863–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc.green2 sentences2015“The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers (1929) 206 Cal. 515, 521-522 [ 274 P. 977 ] (Happy Valley).) “[ 2015“The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers (1929) 206 Cal. 515, 521-522 [ 274 P. 977 ] (Happy Valley).) “[ | 5 | 8 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences2014In People v. Morehead (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 765 (Morehead), the court set out the relevant legal principles, as follows. 10 “ ‘ “[T]he trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case … is not always satisfied by a mere reading of wholly correct, requested instructions.” ’ (People v. Miller (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 190, 207 .) ‘ “[T]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions even in the absence of a request when the terms in an instruction ‘have a “technical meaning peculiar to the law.” ’ [Citations.] No s 2014“It is settled that, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 , italics added; accord, People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1311 .) “ ‘[I]t is the trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case to the extent necessary to enable them to perform their function.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mi | 2 | 3 |
People v. Puentegreen2 sentences2025(Id. at p. 1254, fn. 5; People v. Puente (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1146, fn. 3 .) Here, the trial court advised Alvarez that if he were to violate one of the terms of the waiver (including the requirement that he obey all laws), then “the plea would stand, but the terms would be off, meaning that the Court could select all the way up to prison.” 3 another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary.” In exchange for dismissal of the “special allegation” (as well as counts three and four) and a stipulated six-year prison term (to run c 2023As relevant here, a “ ‘Cruz waiver’ gives a trial court the power to ‘withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term,’ if the defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing.” (People v. Puente (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1146, fn. 3 .) A court may impose an upper term sentence if the defendant bargains for and agrees “to the Cruz waiver and its attendant potential for a maximum term prison sentence.” (People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651 .) Here, the Cruz waiver in the written plea form did not specify Barry would receiv | 2 | 2 |
Gaalen v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018"The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception" [citations omitted.]' " ( Lyons, supra, 20 Cal.2d at p. 584 , 127 P.2d 924 ; see also Van Gaalen v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 371 , 378, 145 Cal.Rptr. 509 , fn. omitted ["[T]he time limit for filing a notice of motion for change of venue prescribed by section 396b is not jurisdictional in the sense that a trial court is without power to entertain an 2018"The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception" [citations omitted.]' " ( Lyons, supra, 20 Cal.2d at p. 584 , 127 P.2d 924 ; see also Van Gaalen v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 371 , 378, 145 Cal.Rptr. 509 , fn. omitted ["[T]he time limit for filing a notice of motion for change of venue prescribed by section 396b is not jurisdictional in the sense that a trial court is without power to entertain an | 2 | 2 |
Neet v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2015“The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers (1929) 206 Cal. 515, 521-522 [ 274 P. 977 ] (Happy Valley).) “[ 2015“The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers (1929) 206 Cal. 515, 521-522 [ 274 P. 977 ] (Happy Valley).) “[ | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2014In People v. Morehead (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 765 (Morehead), the court set out the relevant legal principles, as follows. 10 “ ‘ “[T]he trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case … is not always satisfied by a mere reading of wholly correct, requested instructions.” ’ (People v. Miller (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 190, 207 .) ‘ “[T]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions even in the absence of a request when the terms in an instruction ‘have a “technical meaning peculiar to the law.” ’ [Citations.] No s 2014“It is settled that, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 , italics added; accord, People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1311 .) “ ‘[I]t is the trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case to the extent necessary to enable them to perform their function.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mi | 2 | 2 |
Kleveland v. Chicago Title Insurancegreen2 sentences2013Co. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 761, 765 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 ] (Kleveland).) In Kleveland , a title insurance company provided the plaintiff with a preliminary title report offering to insure the plaintiff’s property on the terms provided in the report, including the terms of the standard American Land Title Association policy form (ALTA policy) the report incorporated by reference. 2013Co. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 761, 765 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 ] (Kleveland).) In Kleveland , a title insurance company provided the plaintiff with a preliminary title report offering to insure the plaintiff’s property on the terms provided in the report, including the terms of the standard American Land Title Association policy form (ALTA policy) the report incorporated by reference. | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Societygreen2 sentences1962In sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the court pointed out (pp. 466-467) : “As was said in Davis v. Hibernia Sav. etc. Soc., 21 Cal.App. 444, 448 [ 132 P. 462 ] : “ ‘One important observation is that the right of plaintiff to invoke the aid of equity for fraud after three years have expired is an exception to the general statute on the subject and plaintiff must bring himself clearly within the terms of the exception if he desires to claim the benefit of it. “ ‘Again, discovery and knowledge are not convertible terms and whether there has been a discovery within the contemplation o 1962In sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the court pointed out (pp. 466-467) : “As was said in Davis v. Hibernia Sav. etc. Soc., 21 Cal.App. 444, 448 [ 132 P. 462 ] : “ ‘One important observation is that the right of plaintiff to invoke the aid of equity for fraud after three years have expired is an exception to the general statute on the subject and plaintiff must bring himself clearly within the terms of the exception if he desires to claim the benefit of it. “ ‘Again, discovery and knowledge are not convertible terms and whether there has been a discovery within the contemplation o | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maurygreen2 sentences2011(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 425-426 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] (Maury); People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 414 P.2d 366 ] (Anderson)) “ ‘[T]he trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case ... is not always satisfied by a mere reading of wholly correct, requested instructions.’ ” (People v. Miller (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 190, 207 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 ].) “ ‘[T]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions even in the absence of a request when the terms in 2011(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 425-426 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] (Maury); People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 414 P.2d 366 ] (Anderson)) “ ‘[T]he trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case ... is not always satisfied by a mere reading of wholly correct, requested instructions.’ ” (People v. Miller (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 190, 207 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 ].) “ ‘[T]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions even in the absence of a request when the terms in | 1 | 2 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2011(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 425-426 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] (Maury); People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 414 P.2d 366 ] (Anderson)) “ ‘[T]he trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case ... is not always satisfied by a mere reading of wholly correct, requested instructions.’ ” (People v. Miller (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 190, 207 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 ].) “ ‘[T]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions even in the absence of a request when the terms in 2011(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 425-426 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] (Maury); People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Cal.2d 633, 639 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 414 P.2d 366 ] (Anderson)) “ ‘[T]he trial court’s duty to see that the jurors are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case ... is not always satisfied by a mere reading of wholly correct, requested instructions.’ ” (People v. Miller (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 190, 207 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 ].) “ ‘[T]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions even in the absence of a request when the terms in | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hensongreen1 sentence2024(See Camacho v. Superior Court (2023) 15 Cal.5th 354 , 376, fn.2 [citing 13 nonpublished opinions to show the existence of an issue]; People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176 , 230 [listing dozens of nonpublished opinions that involved a particular jury instruction]; People v. Henson (2022) 13 Cal.5th 574, 595, fn.15 [citing nonpublished opinions to show issue was recurring and stating “without treating them as legal precedent, we may take judicial notice of their statements of fact”].) Because that sensible use—at least in an opinion—has been sanctioned by our highest court, I am citing the nonp | 1 | 1 |
Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agencygreen1 sentence2022(See Pack, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 841, fn. 15 [noting the record established “the juvenile court understood the terms of the statute, including the presumption in favor of release”].) It 25. appears the juvenile court failed to apply a presumption in favor of release, and instead applied an impermissible presumption in favor of confidentiality. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petersongreen1 sentence2021Analysis “To preserve a claim for appeal under either state or federal law, a defendant must raise a contemporaneous objection at trial and seek a jury admonition. [Citation.] In the absence of an objection, any claim is forfeited unless an exception applies.” (People v. Gamache, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 371 ; accord, People v. Peterson, supra, 10 Cal.5th at 4 The terms error and misconduct are used interchangeably in California, although the California Supreme Court recognized that “the term prosecutorial ‘misconduct’ is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2021A more apt description of the transgression is prosecutorial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 .) 8. pp. 464–465; People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 820 .) As the People point out, defense counsel did not object to the portions of closing argument now at issue on appeal and defendant does not defend this omission based on any exception to the general rule of forfeiture. 2021A more apt description of the transgression is prosecutorial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 .) 8. pp. 464–465; People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 820 .) As the People point out, defense counsel did not object to the portions of closing argument now at issue on appeal and defendant does not defend this omission based on any exception to the general rule of forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
Lebastchi v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015“The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers (1929) 206 Cal. 515, 521-522 [ 274 P. 977 ] (Happy Valley).) “[ 2015“The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers (1929) 206 Cal. 515, 521-522 [ 274 P. 977 ] (Happy Valley).) “[ | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Faillagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Moreheadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Griffingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Blandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cal-Farm Insurance v. TAC Exterminators, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bank of the West v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Valenzuelagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reynoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Flannelred | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sullygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Castrillongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ordonezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lydon v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Weingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Collins v. City and County of San Franciscogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Realty Dock & Improvement Corp. v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Hanley v. Hanleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hanlon v. Western Loan & Building Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Atkinson v. Footegreen | 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. Rodríguez
green
2 sentences1961“The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.” (Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 [ 39 P. 209 ].) ’ (Brown v. Sappy Talley Fruit Growers, 206 Cal. 515, 522 [ 274 P. 977 ].) The facts of this case clearly present a situation in which it should be said that defendant Bowell has not waived that right as was found by the trial court. ...” Defendant Hale evinced his intention not to waive his right as ear 1955They appealed from the order denying their motion, and the Supreme Court, in reversing the judgment, held that the action was personal and transitory and stated at page 521: ‘ ‘ The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial *405 decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim s | 9 | 1929–1961 |
Brady v. Times-Mirror Co.
green
2 sentences1961“The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.” (Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 [ 39 P. 209 ].) ’ (Brown v. Sappy Talley Fruit Growers, 206 Cal. 515, 522 [ 274 P. 977 ].) The facts of this case clearly present a situation in which it should be said that defendant Bowell has not waived that right as was found by the trial court. ...” Defendant Hale evinced his intention not to waive his right as ear 1955They appealed from the order denying their motion, and the Supreme Court, in reversing the judgment, held that the action was personal and transitory and stated at page 521: ‘ ‘ The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial *405 decisions. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim s | 9 | 1929–1961 |
Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. Wood
green
2 sentences1960Co. v. Wood, 113 Cal. 482 , at page 486 [ 45 P. 809 ] it is set forth that: “The right of a plaintiff to invoke the aid of a court of equity for relief against fraud, after the expiration of three years from the time when the fraud was committed is an exception to the general statute on that subject, and cannot be asserted unless the plaintiff brings himself within the terms of the exception. 1960Co. v. Wood, 113 Cal. 482 , at page 486 [ 45 P. 809 ] it is set forth that: “The right of a plaintiff to invoke the aid of a court of equity for relief against fraud, after the expiration of three years from the time when the fraud was committed is an exception to the general statute on that subject, and cannot be asserted unless the plaintiff brings himself within the terms of the exception. | 5 | 1913–1960 |
In Re Richard S.
green
2 sentences2026(In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865–866.) In evaluating this, we “must go beyond” the strict terms of the rule, and determine the intent and purpose behind the rule, which we do by looking to the rule as a whole, the “ ‘ “nature and character of the act to be done, and from the consequences which would follow the doing or failure to do the particular act at the required time.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “When the object is to subserve some public purpose, the provision may be held directory or mandatory as will best accomplish that purpose.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 866.) 6 This accords with the Rules of 2026(In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865–866.) In evaluating this, we “must go beyond” the strict terms of the rule, and determine the intent and purpose behind the rule, which we do by looking to the rule as a whole, the “ ‘ “nature and character of the act to be done, and from the consequences which would follow the doing or failure to do the particular act at the required time.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “When the object is to subserve some public purpose, the provision may be held directory or mandatory as will best accomplish that purpose.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 866.) 4 This accords with the Rules of | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Cruz
green
2 sentences2023On appeal, defendant argues this case must be 1 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 . 1 remanded for resentencing due to changes made to Penal Code2 section 1170, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) (Senate Bill 567), claiming the imposition of the upper term sentence violated his constitutional right to a jury trial on any aggravating factors. 2013The parties agreed that the strike prior would be stricken at sentencing provided defendant complied with the terms of a waiver pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 while he was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing. | 2 | 2013–2023 |
Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.
green
2 sentences2018"The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception" [citations omitted.]' " ( Lyons, supra, 20 Cal.2d at p. 584 , 127 P.2d 924 ; see also Van Gaalen v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 371 , 378, 145 Cal.Rptr. 509 , fn. omitted ["[T]he time limit for filing a notice of motion for change of venue prescribed by section 396b is not jurisdictional in the sense that a trial court is without power to entertain an 2018"The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception" [citations omitted.]' " ( Lyons, supra, 20 Cal.2d at p. 584 , 127 P.2d 924 ; see also Van Gaalen v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 371 , 378, 145 Cal.Rptr. 509 , fn. omitted ["[T]he time limit for filing a notice of motion for change of venue prescribed by section 396b is not jurisdictional in the sense that a trial court is without power to entertain an | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. Scarborough
green
2 sentences1934This case has been followed and reaffirmed innumerable times. *19 The Supreme Court, in the ease of Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. Scarborough et al., 216 Cal. 698 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 268 ], quotes therefrom as follows: “ ‘The right of a plaintiff to invoke the aid of a court of equity for relief against fraud, after the expiration of three years from the time when the fraud was committed, is an exception to the general statute on that subject, and cannot be asserted unless the plaintiff brings himself within the terms of the exception. 1934This case has been followed and reaffirmed innumerable times. *19 The Supreme Court, in the ease of Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. Scarborough et al., 216 Cal. 698 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 268 ], quotes therefrom as follows: “ ‘The right of a plaintiff to invoke the aid of a court of equity for relief against fraud, after the expiration of three years from the time when the fraud was committed, is an exception to the general statute on that subject, and cannot be asserted unless the plaintiff brings himself within the terms of the exception. | 2 | 1933–1934 |
People v. James
green
1 sentence2025(See, e.g., Beltran, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 247 ; People v. James (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1360-1362 .) Unlike in those cases, however, the terms of the instruction given here never shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, so at all times the prosecution bore the burden of proving Castillo’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Beltran
green
2 sentences2025(See, e.g., Beltran, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 247 ; People v. James (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1360-1362 .) Unlike in those cases, however, the terms of the instruction given here never shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, so at all times the prosecution bore the burden of proving Castillo’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2025(See, e.g., Beltran, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 247 ; People v. James (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1360-1362 .) Unlike in those cases, however, the terms of the instruction given here never shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, so at all times the prosecution bore the burden of proving Castillo’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.
green
1 sentence2025Primary rights analysis “To determine whether two proceedings involve identical causes of action for purposes of claim preclusion, California courts have ‘consistently applied the “primary rights” theory.’” (Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 797 .) “When two actions involving the same parties seek compensation for the same harm, they generally involve the same primary right.” (Id. at p. 798.) A cause of action is the “right to obtain redress for a harm suffered, regardless of the specific remedy sought or the legal theory . . . advanced.” (Ibid.) Appellants’ initial petition in the probate court | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Vargas
green
1 sentence2023As relevant here, a “ ‘Cruz waiver’ gives a trial court the power to ‘withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term,’ if the defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing.” (People v. Puente (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1146, fn. 3 .) A court may impose an upper term sentence if the defendant bargains for and agrees “to the Cruz waiver and its attendant potential for a maximum term prison sentence.” (People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651 .) Here, the Cruz waiver in the written plea form did not specify Barry would receiv | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Espinoza
green
1 sentence2022(See People v. Espinoza (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 794, 803 .) 9 appeal would not be reviewable because the terms of the waiver of appellate rights “specifically extended to any right to appeal” the negotiated sentence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Gamache
green
1 sentence2021Analysis “To preserve a claim for appeal under either state or federal law, a defendant must raise a contemporaneous objection at trial and seek a jury admonition. [Citation.] In the absence of an objection, any claim is forfeited unless an exception applies.” (People v. Gamache, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 371 ; accord, People v. Peterson, supra, 10 Cal.5th at 4 The terms error and misconduct are used interchangeably in California, although the California Supreme Court recognized that “the term prosecutorial ‘misconduct’ is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must a | 1 | 2021–2021 |
The People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2020Bhakta in reply argues: “There was not any agreement to a ‘specified term in prison or county jail’ associated with this plea, and thus [rule] 4.412(b), which respondent cites, is not on point.” He adds, “[N]o guarantee was made to [him] that he would receive anything less than the maximum possible sentence.” We reject this claim and agree with the analysis of the court in People v. Jones (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 735 , addressing the terms of rule 4.412(b): “ ‘Specified’ and ‘maximum’ do not have mutually exclusive meanings. ‘Specified’ means ‘to name or state explicitly or in detail.’ (Merriam- | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Lee
green
2 sentences2016We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s reliance on Lee, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th 772 . 2016We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s reliance on Lee, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th 772 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Crane v. Kentucky green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Badgett green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Visciotti green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Montoya green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Continental Heller v. AMTECH MECHANICAL SERV. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Rodriguez green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Woods green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Truitt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Mercury Insurance Group v. Checkerboard Pizza green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Jorgensen v. Taco Bell Corp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| TRIPLE a MACHINE SHOP, INC v. State of California green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Michaels v. Woodland green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Eljer Manufacturing, Incorporated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, Intervening-Defendant-Appellee green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Flood green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Olson green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Superior Court (Kaufman) green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Frank green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Peiser v. Mettler green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Maxon v. Security Insurance of New Haven Connecticut green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Emerzian v. Emerzian green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Collins v. Meis green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Johnson v. Rosenstein green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Sandstoe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.