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 1 courts 1915–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monicagreen2 sentences2022(Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1245 [“[T]he litigation privilege does not bar certain government actions, including criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions brought pursuant to state statutes.”].) 15 single branch of government,” and the “overreaching” by one branch against the others.’ ” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 , 252.) In this system, “our state constitution delegates the prosecutorial function to the executive branch, which is represented by the district attorney.” (People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 79 .) “ ‘[ 2020(Cf. Persolve, supra, at p. 1275 [The Rosenthal Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would be rendered “significantly inoperable” and “negated” if they “did not prevail over the privilege where the two conflict.”].) Although our Supreme Court has noted that the litigation privilege does not apply to a criminal prosecution for violation of Business and Professions Code section 6128 (Action Apartment Assn., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1246 ), the People are not criminally prosecuting defendants for violating this statute. | 1 | 2 |
The People v. Persolve, LLCgreen1 sentence2020(Cf. Persolve, supra, at p. 1275 [The Rosenthal Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would be rendered “significantly inoperable” and “negated” if they “did not prevail over the privilege where the two conflict.”].) Although our Supreme Court has noted that the litigation privilege does not apply to a criminal prosecution for violation of Business and Professions Code section 6128 (Action Apartment Assn., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1246 ), the People are not criminally prosecuting defendants for violating this statute. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Banerjeegreen1 sentence2015(Ibid.) Although the first version of the bill stated that “neither the criminal nor the administrative proceeding would have any effect on the other,” the final version provided that “an ‘acqutt[al]’ of criminal charges does preclude the administrative sanction.” (Ibid.) Our high court explained that, because the Legislature considered and rejected the provision that the criminal prosecution would not bar a subsequent administrative proceeding, “[t]he expression of some things in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things not expressed.” (Ibid.) The principle that the “expressi | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Silvano Salinasgreen1 sentence1996(U.S. v. Salinas (6th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 551, 553, fn. 2 .) 6 For a persuasive analysis of why the Halper double jeopardy protection should not apply at all when the defendant asserts that a civil proceeding bars any attempt at criminal prosecution, see U.S. v. Collette (D.Alaska 1995) 892 F.Supp. 232 (holding only a prior criminal prosecution can bar another criminal prosecution, and that a civil forfeiture proceeding is not a criminal prosecution even if the penalty imposed may, as applied, constitute “punishment”); U.S. v. Falkowski (D.Alaska 1995) 900 F.Supp. 1207 (same); but see U.S. v. H | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crutchergreen2 sentences1971VI, § 13.) Medina relies on People v. Crutcher, 262 Cal.App.2d 750, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 904 ], a case involving a criminal prosecution for violation of those Election Code sections which restrict endorsement claims in political literature circulated during primary election campaigns. 1971VI, § 13.) Medina relies on People v. Crutcher, 262 Cal.App.2d 750, 755 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 904 ], a case involving a criminal prosecution for violation of those Election Code sections which restrict endorsement claims in political literature circulated during primary election campaigns. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dotsongreen2 sentences1967It has, however, been held that a juvenile court proceeding is not a criminal case, and therefore not subject to the restrictions governing such cases (People v. Dotson, 46 Cal.2d 891, 895 [ 299 P.2d 875 ]). 1967It has, however, been held that a juvenile court proceeding is not a criminal case, and therefore not subject to the restrictions governing such cases (People v. Dotson, 46 Cal.2d 891, 895 [ 299 P.2d 875 ]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sidwellgreen2 sentences1958It is likewise true that “ [t]he understanding or misunderstanding of the parties as to the nature of the transaction is not determinative of its legal effect.” (People v. Sidwell, 27 Cal.2d 121, 126 [ 162 P.2d 913 ].) The cases are legion that the substance and not the form of the transaction should be the .criterion used in determining its character. 1958It is likewise true that “ [t]he understanding or misunderstanding of the parties as to the nature of the transaction is not determinative of its legal effect.” (People v. Sidwell, 27 Cal.2d 121, 126 [ 162 P.2d 913 ].) The cases are legion that the substance and not the form of the transaction should be the .criterion used in determining its character. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. John C. Hudson, Larry Baresel, and Jack Butler Rackleygreen1 sentence1996(U.S. v. Salinas (6th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 551, 553, fn. 2 .) 6 For a persuasive analysis of why the Halper double jeopardy protection should not apply at all when the defendant asserts that a civil proceeding bars any attempt at criminal prosecution, see U.S. v. Collette (D.Alaska 1995) 892 F.Supp. 232 (holding only a prior criminal prosecution can bar another criminal prosecution, and that a civil forfeiture proceeding is not a criminal prosecution even if the penalty imposed may, as applied, constitute “punishment”); U.S. v. Falkowski (D.Alaska 1995) 900 F.Supp. 1207 (same); but see U.S. v. H | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manduley v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022(Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1245 [“[T]he litigation privilege does not bar certain government actions, including criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions brought pursuant to state statutes.”].) 15 single branch of government,” and the “overreaching” by one branch against the others.’ ” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 , 252.) In this system, “our state constitution delegates the prosecutorial function to the executive branch, which is represented by the district attorney.” (People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 79 .) “ ‘[ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Cortes
green
1 sentence2022(Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1245 [“[T]he litigation privilege does not bar certain government actions, including criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions brought pursuant to state statutes.”].) 15 single branch of government,” and the “overreaching” by one branch against the others.’ ” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 , 252.) In this system, “our state constitution delegates the prosecutorial function to the executive branch, which is represented by the district attorney.” (People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 79 .) “ ‘[ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Parmar
green
1 sentence2022(Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1245 [“[T]he litigation privilege does not bar certain government actions, including criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions brought pursuant to state statutes.”].) 15 single branch of government,” and the “overreaching” by one branch against the others.’ ” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 , 252.) In this system, “our state constitution delegates the prosecutorial function to the executive branch, which is represented by the district attorney.” (People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 79 .) “ ‘[ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gananian v. Wagstaffe
green
1 sentence2022(Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1245 [“[T]he litigation privilege does not bar certain government actions, including criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions brought pursuant to state statutes.”].) 15 single branch of government,” and the “overreaching” by one branch against the others.’ ” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 , 252.) In this system, “our state constitution delegates the prosecutorial function to the executive branch, which is represented by the district attorney.” (People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 79 .) “ ‘[ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2015(Ibid.) Although the first version of the bill stated that “neither the criminal nor the administrative proceeding would have any effect on the other,” the final version provided that “an ‘acqutt[al]’ of criminal charges does preclude the administrative sanction.” (Ibid.) Our high court explained that, because the Legislature considered and rejected the provision that the criminal prosecution would not bar a subsequent administrative proceeding, “[t]he expression of some things in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things not expressed.” (Ibid.) The principle that the “expressi | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bayscene Resident Negotiators v. Bayscene Mobilehome Park
green
2 sentences2008Nor are petitioner’s citations to Bayscene Resident Negotiators v. Bayscene Mobilehome Park (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 119 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 626 ] (Bayscene) and Costa v. Workers’ Comp. 2008Nor are petitioner’s citations to Bayscene Resident Negotiators v. Bayscene Mobilehome Park (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 119 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 626 ] (Bayscene) and Costa v. Workers’ Comp. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch
green
2 sentences1996The United States Supreme Court in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, supra, 511 U.S. 767 , reserved “the question whether an ostensibly civil proceeding that is designed to inflict punishment may bar a subsequent proceeding that is admittedly criminal in character.” The court observed that the tax statute at issue in that case did not raise the question because the tax was imposed only after arrest for certain criminal offenses. (511 U.S. at p._, fn. 21 [ 128 L.Ed.2d at p. 780 , 114 S.Ct. at p. 1947 ].) 7 These statutes provide for forfeiture of conveyances, or real property, us 1996The United States Supreme Court in Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, supra, 511 U.S. 767 , reserved “the question whether an ostensibly civil proceeding that is designed to inflict punishment may bar a subsequent proceeding that is admittedly criminal in character.” The court observed that the tax statute at issue in that case did not raise the question because the tax was imposed only after arrest for certain criminal offenses. (511 U.S. at p._, fn. 21 [ 128 L.Ed.2d at p. 780 , 114 S.Ct. at p. 1947 ].) 7 These statutes provide for forfeiture of conveyances, or real property, us | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Ronald D. Chick
green
1 sentence1996(U.S. v. Salinas (6th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 551, 553, fn. 2 .) 6 For a persuasive analysis of why the Halper double jeopardy protection should not apply at all when the defendant asserts that a civil proceeding bars any attempt at criminal prosecution, see U.S. v. Collette (D.Alaska 1995) 892 F.Supp. 232 (holding only a prior criminal prosecution can bar another criminal prosecution, and that a civil forfeiture proceeding is not a criminal prosecution even if the penalty imposed may, as applied, constitute “punishment”); U.S. v. Falkowski (D.Alaska 1995) 900 F.Supp. 1207 (same); but see U.S. v. H | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Falkowski
green
1 sentence1996(U.S. v. Salinas (6th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 551, 553, fn. 2 .) 6 For a persuasive analysis of why the Halper double jeopardy protection should not apply at all when the defendant asserts that a civil proceeding bars any attempt at criminal prosecution, see U.S. v. Collette (D.Alaska 1995) 892 F.Supp. 232 (holding only a prior criminal prosecution can bar another criminal prosecution, and that a civil forfeiture proceeding is not a criminal prosecution even if the penalty imposed may, as applied, constitute “punishment”); U.S. v. Falkowski (D.Alaska 1995) 900 F.Supp. 1207 (same); but see U.S. v. H | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Collette
neutral
1 sentence1996(U.S. v. Salinas (6th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 551, 553, fn. 2 .) 6 For a persuasive analysis of why the Halper double jeopardy protection should not apply at all when the defendant asserts that a civil proceeding bars any attempt at criminal prosecution, see U.S. v. Collette (D.Alaska 1995) 892 F.Supp. 232 (holding only a prior criminal prosecution can bar another criminal prosecution, and that a civil forfeiture proceeding is not a criminal prosecution even if the penalty imposed may, as applied, constitute “punishment”); U.S. v. Falkowski (D.Alaska 1995) 900 F.Supp. 1207 (same); but see U.S. v. H | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences1966(People v. Ferguson, 134 Cal.App. 41 [ 24 P.2d 965 ].) 1966(People v. Ferguson, 134 Cal.App. 41 [ 24 P.2d 965 ].) | 1 | 1966–1966 |
People v. Mueller
green
1 sentence1915If the present defendant or others were dissatisfied with the conduct of the election or the result of it as declared, they should have promptly brought their action, as they might have done, to contest its validity and the correctness of the ascertained result.” In our opinion the legislative intent in the enactment of the provision of section 10 of the Wyllie Local Option Law was to facilitate the presentation of the proof required in a criminal prosecution for the violation of the statute, and this construction of the statute is fully supported by the case of People v. Mueller, 168 Cal. 521 | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.