abuse privilege (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

abuse privilege in California

10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
In re Williamsgreen
calctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985An abuse of privilege is shown where a defendant practices a deception upon the court at the time probation is granted [citation] . . . .” (P. 817.) Where a defendant obtains probation by refusing to disclose his true identity and criminal record the appropriate remedy is revocation of probation. 2 (In re Williams (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 53, 55 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 528 ].) In this case the trial court chose not to revoke but rather to vacate the order of probation.

1985An abuse of privilege is shown where a defendant practices a deception upon the court at the time probation is granted [citation] . . . .” (P. 817.) Where a defendant obtains probation by refusing to disclose his true identity and criminal record the appropriate remedy is revocation of probation. 2 (In re Williams (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 53, 55 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 528 ].) In this case the trial court chose not to revoke but rather to vacate the order of probation.

11
People v. Sapienzogreen
calctapp · 1923 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1957
2 sentences

1957An abuse of privilege is shown where a defendant practices a deception upon the court at the time probation is granted (People v. Sapienzo, 60 Cal.App. 626, 629 [ 213 P. 274 ]) or violates any of the terms or conditions of probation.

1957An abuse of privilege is shown where a defendant practices a deception upon the court at the time probation is granted (People v. Sapienzo, 60 Cal.App. 626, 629 [ 213 P. 274 ]) or violates any of the terms or conditions of probation.

11
People v. Kramergreen
cal · 1897 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1952–1952
2 sentences

1952The proper way to correct such an abuse of privilege on the part of either counsel is for his adversary to call it to the at *726 tention of the court and have it stopped. ’ ’ (People v. Kramer, 117 Cal. 647, 650 [ 49 P. 842 ] ; People v. Cook, supra, p. 349 .) The remarks of the deputy district attorney were most reprehensible.

1952The proper way to correct such an abuse of privilege on the part of either counsel is for his adversary to call it to the at *726 tention of the court and have it stopped. ’ ’ (People v. Kramer, 117 Cal. 647, 650 [ 49 P. 842 ] ; People v. Cook, supra, p. 349 .) The remarks of the deputy district attorney were most reprehensible.

11
Gosewisch v. Dorangreen
cal · 1911 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
2 sentences

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11
Brewer v. Second Baptist Churchgreen
cal · 1948 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
2 sentences

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11
Harris v. Zanonegreen
· 1892 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
2 sentences

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11
Ball v. Rawlesgreen
cal · 1892 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
1 sentence

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11
Behrendt v. Times Mirror Co.green
calctapp · 1938 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
2 sentences

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11
Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co.green
calctapp · 1942 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
2 sentences

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Conners green
calctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2019(People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453 ; People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 .) C.

2019(People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453 ; People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 .) C.

22019–2019
People v. SANGHERA green
calctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2019(People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453 ; People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 .) C.

2019(People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453 ; People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 .) C.

22019–2019
People v. Brown green
calctapp · 1988
1 sentence

2023(People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1234 , overruled on different grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216 ; People 23. v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340 .) Under an abuse standard, we will not disturb a lower court’s ruling unless “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1124–1125, quoting People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) C.

12023–2023
People v. Jordan green
cal · 1986
1 sentence

2023(People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1234 , overruled on different grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216 ; People 23. v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340 .) Under an abuse standard, we will not disturb a lower court’s ruling unless “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1124–1125, quoting People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) C.

12023–2023
People v. Rangel green
cal · 2016
1 sentence

2023(People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1234 , overruled on different grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216 ; People 23. v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340 .) Under an abuse standard, we will not disturb a lower court’s ruling unless “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1124–1125, quoting People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) C.

12023–2023
People v. Rodrigues green
cal · 1994
1 sentence

2023(People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1234 , overruled on different grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216 ; People 23. v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340 .) Under an abuse standard, we will not disturb a lower court’s ruling unless “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1124–1125, quoting People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) C.

12023–2023
People v. Hajek and Vo green
cal · 2014
1 sentence

2023(People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1234 , overruled on different grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216 ; People 23. v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340 .) Under an abuse standard, we will not disturb a lower court’s ruling unless “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ ” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1124–1125, quoting People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) C.

12023–2023
Sellery v. Cressey green
calctapp · 1996
1 sentence

1999If there were, judges and juries would no doubt like to have one when, in certain contexts, they must decide the merits of an abuse claim (e.g., Sellery v. Cressey, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 538 ).

11999–1999
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts green
scotus · 1967
1 sentence

1979These internal restraints have been identified as (1) self-policing through professional standards of conduct; (2) the right of reply in the media involved; (3) fear of the judgment of the market place." ( Id., at p. 930.) In my view neither defendant Johnson nor defendant church is subject to those types of restraints and hence are not properly denoted as media defendants. [3] In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, 388 U.S. 130 , a majority of five members of the court agreed that the "actual malice test was applicable to `public figures.'" Four other members of the court instead adopted a

11979–1979
People v. Rivera green
· 1920
1 sentence

1950(Harris v. Zanone, 93 Cal. 59, 70 [ 28 P. 845 ]; Ball v. Rawles, 93 Cal. 222, 236 [ 28 P. 937 , 27 Am.St.Rep. 174 ]; Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511, 513-514 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442]; Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Behrendt v. Times-Mirror Co., 30 Cal.App.2d 77, 88 [ 85 P.2d 949 ]; Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co., 49 Cal.App.2d 340, 349, 353 [ 121 P.2d 761 ].) Given the view that the Legislature has taken of its own powers with regard to the law of defamation and the courts’ acceptance of that view, it is clear that the abuse clause of the Cons

11950–1950
People v. Sambrano green
calctapp · 1939
2 sentences

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

11943–1943
People v. Gordan green
cal · 1894
2 sentences

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

11943–1943
People v. Burns green
cal · 1898
1 sentence

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

11943–1943
People v. Burke green
calctapp · 1912
2 sentences

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

11943–1943
People v. Hightower green
calctapp · 1924
1 sentence

1943(People v. Sambrano, 33 Cal.App.2d 200 [ 91 P.2d 221 ]; People v. Hightower, 65 Cal.Ápp. 331 [ 224 P. 110 ]; People v. Burke, 18 Cal.App. 72 [ 122 P. 435 ]; People v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568 [ 37 P. 534 ]; People v. Burns, 121 Cal. 529 [53 P.1096].) The trial courts possess adequate powers to restrain an abuse of this privilege.

11943–1943

Where else courts name it

TX 50 (1917–2025) PA 44 (1907–2024) LA 35 (1962–2021) NC 33 (1877–2004) MD 32 (1894–2025) IL 31 (1894–2026) NY 20 (1895–2013) WA 13 (1891–2014) MA 13 (1917–2026) FL 12 (1884–2026) NJ 10 (1957–2001) CA 10 (1943–2023) AZ 9 (1953–2018) MS 9 (1951–2022) AL 9 (1941–2015) MO 7 (1909–2020) IN 7 (1946–2017) ME 6 (1974–2021) SD 6 (1987–2015) TN 6 (2000–2024) VA 6 (1952–2000) IA 6 (1928–2023) WV 5 (1892–2013) SC 5 (1925–2016) WI 5 (1898–2020) NE 5 (1914–1985) ID 4 (1911–1990) UT 4 (1916–2017) OK 4 (1942–2009) ND 4 (1918–2013) MI 4 (1941–1993) OR 3 (1987–2010) HI 3 (2004–2026) OH 3 (1909–2014) KY 2 (1926–1928) DC 2 (1984–2025) MN 2 (1916–1968) NM 2 (1983–2011) GA 2 (1961–2023) WY 2 (1938–1945) AK 2 (1961–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check