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.
10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lozano v. Scaliergreen2 sentences2023For instance, in Lozano v. Scalier (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 843 (Lozano), the natural father of a 10-month-old decedent needed to establish that he would be entitled to the child’s property under the laws of intestate succession, including section 6452, in order to pursue a wrongful death action with respect to the deceased infant. 2007In Lozano v. Scalier (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 843, 848 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 346 ], the court rejected the contention that the acknowledgement must be a witnessed writing made after the child was bom. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Greengreen1 sentence2020(Ibid.; see People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009 (Green); People v. Mestas (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 780, 786 .) Acknowledgement of the verdict in open court may be performed by the foreperson on behalf of the entire jury. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164, subd. (a); People v. Wiley (1931) 111 Cal.App. 622, 625 ; Stalcup v. Superior Court (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 932, 936 .) Additionally, upon request of either party, the jurors may be required to individually acknowledge the verdict through the process of individual polling. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164.) The acknowledgment requirement and the defendant’s ri | 1 | 1 |
People v. Scottgreen1 sentence2006(Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 354, fn. 17 .) In order to determine whether a defendant has been subject to the multiple punishment prohibited by section 654, an appellate court must resort to an examination of the trial record (just as the Attorney General examines the record here in an attempt to establish that some of Hiscox’s offenses occurred before the effective date of section 667.61). | 1 | 1 |
City of Detroit v. Murray Corp. of Americagreen2 sentences1996(See, e.g., United States v. City of Detroit, supra, 355 U.S. at p. 473 [2 L.Ed.2d at p. 429], and City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., supra, 355 U.S. at p. 494 [ 2 L.Ed.2d at p. 446 ].) 6 Government property is defined as “all property owned by or leased to the Government or acquired by the Government under the terms of the contract. 1996(See, e.g., United States v. City of Detroit, supra, 355 U.S. at p. 473 [2 L.Ed.2d at p. 429], and City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., supra, 355 U.S. at p. 494 [ 2 L.Ed.2d at p. 446 ].) 6 Government property is defined as “all property owned by or leased to the Government or acquired by the Government under the terms of the contract. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences1996(See, e.g., United States v. City of Detroit, supra, 355 U.S. at p. 473 [2 L.Ed.2d at p. 429], and City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., supra, 355 U.S. at p. 494 [ 2 L.Ed.2d at p. 446 ].) 6 Government property is defined as “all property owned by or leased to the Government or acquired by the Government under the terms of the contract. 1996(See, e.g., United States v. City of Detroit, supra, 355 U.S. at p. 473 [2 L.Ed.2d at p. 429], and City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., supra, 355 U.S. at p. 494 [ 2 L.Ed.2d at p. 446 ].) 6 Government property is defined as “all property owned by or leased to the Government or acquired by the Government under the terms of the contract. | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. O'Connorgreen2 sentences1951Assuming, but not deciding, that one in appellant’s position, who has executed and delivered a note and trust deed, could urge a false acknowledgment as a defense against a holder in due course, appellant’s contention with respect to the evidentiary ques tion involved is answered by the language found in Jordan v. O’Connor, 99 Cal.App.2d 632, 641 [ 222 P.2d 322 ], as follows: “Appellant directs attention to the fact that appellant’s testimony is not contradicted by that of any other witness and invokes the general rule that the testimony of such a witness may not be disregarded but should be a 1951Assuming, but not deciding, that one in appellant’s position, who has executed and delivered a note and trust deed, could urge a false acknowledgment as a defense against a holder in due course, appellant’s contention with respect to the evidentiary ques tion involved is answered by the language found in Jordan v. O’Connor, 99 Cal.App.2d 632, 641 [ 222 P.2d 322 ], as follows: “Appellant directs attention to the fact that appellant’s testimony is not contradicted by that of any other witness and invokes the general rule that the testimony of such a witness may not be disregarded but should be a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Escobedo v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1982This acknowledgment however was an exception to the general holding which denied standing where the objection was based on violation of another’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights as protected under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ] or Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ]. 1982This acknowledgment however was an exception to the general holding which denied standing where the objection was based on violation of another’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights as protected under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ] or Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ]. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1982This acknowledgment however was an exception to the general holding which denied standing where the objection was based on violation of another’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights as protected under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ] or Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ]. 1982This acknowledgment however was an exception to the general holding which denied standing where the objection was based on violation of another’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights as protected under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ] or Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ]. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Stalcup v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2020(Ibid.; see People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009 (Green); People v. Mestas (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 780, 786 .) Acknowledgement of the verdict in open court may be performed by the foreperson on behalf of the entire jury. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164, subd. (a); People v. Wiley (1931) 111 Cal.App. 622, 625 ; Stalcup v. Superior Court (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 932, 936 .) Additionally, upon request of either party, the jurors may be required to individually acknowledge the verdict through the process of individual polling. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164.) The acknowledgment requirement and the defendant’s ri | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Thornton
green
1 sentence2020(Ibid.; see People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009 (Green); People v. Mestas (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 780, 786 .) Acknowledgement of the verdict in open court may be performed by the foreperson on behalf of the entire jury. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164, subd. (a); People v. Wiley (1931) 111 Cal.App. 622, 625 ; Stalcup v. Superior Court (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 932, 936 .) Additionally, upon request of either party, the jurors may be required to individually acknowledge the verdict through the process of individual polling. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164.) The acknowledgment requirement and the defendant’s ri | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Mestas
green
1 sentence2020(Ibid.; see People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009 (Green); People v. Mestas (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 780, 786 .) Acknowledgement of the verdict in open court may be performed by the foreperson on behalf of the entire jury. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164, subd. (a); People v. Wiley (1931) 111 Cal.App. 622, 625 ; Stalcup v. Superior Court (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 932, 936 .) Additionally, upon request of either party, the jurors may be required to individually acknowledge the verdict through the process of individual polling. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164.) The acknowledgment requirement and the defendant’s ri | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Wiley
green
1 sentence2020(Ibid.; see People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009 (Green); People v. Mestas (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 780, 786 .) Acknowledgement of the verdict in open court may be performed by the foreperson on behalf of the entire jury. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164, subd. (a); People v. Wiley (1931) 111 Cal.App. 622, 625 ; Stalcup v. Superior Court (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 932, 936 .) Additionally, upon request of either party, the jurors may be required to individually acknowledge the verdict through the process of individual polling. (§§ 1149, 1163, 1164.) The acknowledgment requirement and the defendant’s ri | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Quarterman v. Kefauver
green
1 sentence2007(Quarterman v. Kefauver, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1371 .) Section 6452 states: “If a child is bom out of wedlock, neither a natural parent nor a relative of that parent inherits from or through the child on the basis of the parent and child relationship between that parent and the child unless both of the following requirements are satisfied: [ft] (a) The parent or a relative of the parent acknowledged the child, [ft] (b) The parent or a relative of the parent contributed to the support or the care of the child.” Two cases have interpreted the acknowledgment requirement in section 6452, sub | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Danielly
green
2 sentences1949The same paradox is presented as that which existed in People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330 [ 202 P.2d 53 ], and People v. Danielly, 33 Cal.2d 362 [ 202 P.2d 18 ], where, in my dissents, I pointed out the injustice which is bound to flow therefrom. 1949The same paradox is presented as that which existed in People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330 [ 202 P.2d 53 ], and People v. Danielly, 33 Cal.2d 362 [ 202 P.2d 18 ], where, in my dissents, I pointed out the injustice which is bound to flow therefrom. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
People v. Wells
green
2 sentences1949The same paradox is presented as that which existed in People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330 [ 202 P.2d 53 ], and People v. Danielly, 33 Cal.2d 362 [ 202 P.2d 18 ], where, in my dissents, I pointed out the injustice which is bound to flow therefrom. 1949The same paradox is presented as that which existed in People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330 [ 202 P.2d 53 ], and People v. Danielly, 33 Cal.2d 362 [ 202 P.2d 18 ], where, in my dissents, I pointed out the injustice which is bound to flow therefrom. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Newark Trust Co. v. Kriebel
neutral
2 sentences1941Usually, perhaps, where there is a promise not to plead the statute, there will be found in the context something further which will amount to an acknowledgment of indebtedness from which a promise to pay may be implied; but in the absence of such context it seems on the authority of the cases cited, and upon a strict application of the present theory of the doctrine of acknowledgment, that a promise not to take advantage of the statute will have no efficacy in itself as an acknowledgment of a debt.” Even in the case of the renewal of a note, which ordinarily might be taken as an admission of 1941Usually, perhaps, where there is a promise not to plead the statute, there will be found in the context something further which will amount to an acknowledgment of indebtedness from which a promise to pay may be implied; but in the absence of such context it seems on the authority of the cases cited, and upon a strict application of the present theory of the doctrine of acknowledgment, that a promise not to take advantage of the statute will have no efficacy in itself as an acknowledgment of a debt.” Even in the case of the renewal of a note, which ordinarily might be taken as an admission of | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.