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 1978–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Durangreen2 sentences2014(Id. at p. 169.) In Duran, we declared “our continued adherence to the Harrington rule” in light of the “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 .) Duran “reaffirm[ed] the rule that a defendant cannot be subjected to 8 physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury’s presence, unless there is a showing of a 2014(Id. at p. 169.) In Duran, we declared “our continued adherence to the Harrington rule” in light of the “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 .) Duran “reaffirm[ed] the rule that a defendant cannot be subjected to 8 physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury’s presence, unless there is a showing of a | 1 | 5 |
Hall v. Regents of University of Californiagreen1 sentence2021(See part I.C., ante.) As to the second prong regarding reasonable cause, we reject Harrington’s claim that “[t]he mere existence of the unresolved conflict on a material issue of fact establishes ‘reasonable’ and ‘probable’ cause as a matter of law.” As this court has previously noted, “the recognized purpose of section 1038 is to discourage frivolous lawsuits by allowing blameless public entities to recover their defense costs.” (Hall v. Regents of University of California (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1580, 1587 (Hall).) “ ‘Reasonable cause is to be determined objectively, as a matter of law, on th | 1 | 1 |
PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexlergreen2 sentences2008(See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 , 997 P.2d 511 ]; cf. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 410 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 783 ].) *595 DISPOSITION The order denying Harrington’s motion for fees is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order granting the motion and ordering PESI to pay Harrington’s reasonable attorney fees in the sum of $500 (without interest unless the amount remains unpaid after this opinion becomes final). 2008(See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 , 997 P.2d 511 ]; cf. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 410 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 783 ].) *595 DISPOSITION The order denying Harrington’s motion for fees is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order granting the motion and ordering PESI to pay Harrington’s reasonable attorney fees in the sum of $500 (without interest unless the amount remains unpaid after this opinion becomes final). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Allengreen2 sentences2007(Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 ; People v. Harrington, supra, 42 Cal. at p. 168 .) The Duran court stated the potential harms resulting from shackling the defendant; “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, [10] the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well, as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand, all support our continued adherence to the Harrington rule.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 .) In addition, as the Duran court observed, the Un 2007(Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 ; People v. Harrington, supra, 42 Cal. at p. 168 .) The Duran court stated the potential harms resulting from shackling the defendant; “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, [10] the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well, as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand, all support our continued adherence to the Harrington rule.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 .) In addition, as the Duran court observed, the Un | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coxgreen2 sentences2006Accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 841 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 , 952 P.2d 673 ; see also Pen.Code, § 688.) "In assessing the impact on the right to a fair trial, the first and last of these considerations predominate." ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 652 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 . 2006Accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 841 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 , 952 P.2d 673 ; see also Pen.Code, § 688.) "In assessing the impact on the right to a fair trial, the first and last of these considerations predominate." ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 652 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2006Accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 841 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 , 952 P.2d 673 ; see also Pen.Code, § 688.) "In assessing the impact on the right to a fair trial, the first and last of these considerations predominate." ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 652 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 . 2006Accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 841 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 , 952 P.2d 673 ; see also Pen.Code, § 688.) "In assessing the impact on the right to a fair trial, the first and last of these considerations predominate." ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 652 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tuilaepagreen2 sentences1993“We have consistently found any unjustified or unadmonished shackling harmless where there was no evidence it was seen by the jury.” (People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 583-584 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 , 842 P.2d 1142 ].) We are therefore far less concerned with physical restraints when there is no evidence that the jury saw the defendant in shackles. 13 Thus, measures such as an unobtrusive leg brace concealed under trousers with a draped counsel table may prevent the jury from seeing that the defendant is restrained at all. 14 Conversely, the spectacle of a defendant testifying in wrist an 1993“We have consistently found any unjustified or unadmonished shackling harmless where there was no evidence it was seen by the jury.” (People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 583-584 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382 , 842 P.2d 1142 ].) We are therefore far less concerned with physical restraints when there is no evidence that the jury saw the defendant in shackles. 13 Thus, measures such as an unobtrusive leg brace concealed under trousers with a draped counsel table may prevent the jury from seeing that the defendant is restrained at all. 14 Conversely, the spectacle of a defendant testifying in wrist an | 1 | 1 |
Harrington v. Californiared2 sentences1982(Ante, p. 525.) But even federal constitutional error may be deemed harmless where the evidence of defendant’s guilt is “overwhelming.” (Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 287 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ].) As expressed by the high court in a recent case applying the Harrington rule, ‘“[A] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,’ for there are no perfect trials [citations].” (Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], italics added.) The record reflects that defendant both planned and committed multiple mu 1982(Ante, p. 525.) But even federal constitutional error may be deemed harmless where the evidence of defendant’s guilt is “overwhelming.” (Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 287 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ].) As expressed by the high court in a recent case applying the Harrington rule, ‘“[A] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,’ for there are no perfect trials [citations].” (Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], italics added.) The record reflects that defendant both planned and committed multiple mu | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982(Ante, p. 525.) But even federal constitutional error may be deemed harmless where the evidence of defendant’s guilt is “overwhelming.” (Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 287 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ].) As expressed by the high court in a recent case applying the Harrington rule, ‘“[A] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,’ for there are no perfect trials [citations].” (Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], italics added.) The record reflects that defendant both planned and committed multiple mu 1982(Ante, p. 525.) But even federal constitutional error may be deemed harmless where the evidence of defendant’s guilt is “overwhelming.” (Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 287 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ].) As expressed by the high court in a recent case applying the Harrington rule, ‘“[A] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,’ for there are no perfect trials [citations].” (Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], italics added.) The record reflects that defendant both planned and committed multiple mu | 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. Harrington
green
2 sentences2007(Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 ; People v. Harrington, supra, 42 Cal. at p. 168 .) The Duran court stated the potential harms resulting from shackling the defendant; “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, [10] the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well, as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand, all support our continued adherence to the Harrington rule.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 .) In addition, as the Duran court observed, the Un 2007(Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 ; People v. Harrington, supra, 42 Cal. at p. 168 .) The Duran court stated the potential harms resulting from shackling the defendant; “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, [10] the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well, as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand, all support our continued adherence to the Harrington rule.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 290 .) In addition, as the Duran court observed, the Un | 4 | 1978–2007 |
Knight v. City of Capitola
green
1 sentence2021Once what the plaintiff (or his or her 9 attorney) knew has been determined, or found to be undisputed, it is for the court to decide “ ‘Whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable . . . .’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1586, italics omitted & added, quoting Knight v. City of Capitola (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 918, 932 .) Here, the trial court expressly found that “Hamilton knew plaintiff’s lawsuit did not have a valid proof of service for the tort claim prior to filing the original Complaint.” (Italics added.) This knowledge is imputed to Harrington. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles
neutral
2 sentences2008(See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 , 997 P.2d 511 ]; cf. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 410 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 783 ].) *595 DISPOSITION The order denying Harrington’s motion for fees is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order granting the motion and ordering PESI to pay Harrington’s reasonable attorney fees in the sum of $500 (without interest unless the amount remains unpaid after this opinion becomes final). 2008(See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 , 997 P.2d 511 ]; cf. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 410 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 783 ].) *595 DISPOSITION The order denying Harrington’s motion for fees is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order granting the motion and ordering PESI to pay Harrington’s reasonable attorney fees in the sum of $500 (without interest unless the amount remains unpaid after this opinion becomes final). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ramona R. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1992What gave me the greatest pause was the case of Ramona R., [supra, 37 Cal.3d 802 ,] because there, somewhat similarly to this case, there was involved a statement to a probation officer. 1992What gave me the greatest pause was the case of Ramona R., [supra, 37 Cal.3d 802 ,] because there, somewhat similarly to this case, there was involved a statement to a probation officer. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Harrington
green
2 sentences1992The trial judge noted his long and difficult struggle over the issue, and stated: “I’m persuaded that the broad general rule of the Harrington [People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 ( 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 )] case, which was decided in 1970, regarding the inadmissibility of statements to a probation officer will, when it is subjected to a Proposition 8 analysis, as was the Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ( 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 )] rule in People v. May [(1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 ( 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 )], be qualified to permit the 1992The trial judge noted his long and difficult struggle over the issue, and stated: “I’m persuaded that the broad general rule of the Harrington [People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 ( 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 )] case, which was decided in 1970, regarding the inadmissibility of statements to a probation officer will, when it is subjected to a Proposition 8 analysis, as was the Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ( 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 )] rule in People v. May [(1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 ( 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 )], be qualified to permit the | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1992The trial judge noted his long and difficult struggle over the issue, and stated: “I’m persuaded that the broad general rule of the Harrington [People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 ( 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 )] case, which was decided in 1970, regarding the inadmissibility of statements to a probation officer will, when it is subjected to a Proposition 8 analysis, as was the Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ( 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 )] rule in People v. May [(1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 ( 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 )], be qualified to permit the 1992The trial judge noted his long and difficult struggle over the issue, and stated: “I’m persuaded that the broad general rule of the Harrington [People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 ( 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 )] case, which was decided in 1970, regarding the inadmissibility of statements to a probation officer will, when it is subjected to a Proposition 8 analysis, as was the Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ( 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 )] rule in People v. May [(1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 ( 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 )], be qualified to permit the | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Alesi
green
2 sentences1992H] So to the extent that the Alesi [People v. Alesi (1967) 67 Cal.2d 856 ( 64 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 434 P.2d 360 )] case stands as an exception to the Harrington rule because of the intimate involvement of counsel, I would indicate that I don’t really see any great distinction because counsel has been involved in the very plea of guilt which sent this man to the probation department, and presumably advised him before going to the probation department. 1992H] So to the extent that the Alesi [People v. Alesi (1967) 67 Cal.2d 856 ( 64 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 434 P.2d 360 )] case stands as an exception to the Harrington rule because of the intimate involvement of counsel, I would indicate that I don’t really see any great distinction because counsel has been involved in the very plea of guilt which sent this man to the probation department, and presumably advised him before going to the probation department. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. May
green
2 sentences1992The trial judge noted his long and difficult struggle over the issue, and stated: “I’m persuaded that the broad general rule of the Harrington [People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 ( 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 )] case, which was decided in 1970, regarding the inadmissibility of statements to a probation officer will, when it is subjected to a Proposition 8 analysis, as was the Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ( 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 )] rule in People v. May [(1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 ( 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 )], be qualified to permit the 1992The trial judge noted his long and difficult struggle over the issue, and stated: “I’m persuaded that the broad general rule of the Harrington [People v. Harrington (1970) 2 Cal.3d 991 ( 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 )] case, which was decided in 1970, regarding the inadmissibility of statements to a probation officer will, when it is subjected to a Proposition 8 analysis, as was the Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ( 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 )] rule in People v. May [(1988) 44 Cal.3d 309 ( 243 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 748 P.2d 307 )], be qualified to permit the | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
2 sentences1982The majority, characterizing the admission of Dr. Lieberman's opinions as federal constitutional error (see Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454 [ 68 L.Ed.2d 359 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 ]), states that the "federal test" of harmless error must be applied. ( Ante, p. 525.) But even federal constitutional error may be deemed harmless where the evidence of defendant's guilt is "overwhelming." ( Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 287 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ].) As expressed by the high court in a recent case applying the Harrington rule, "`[A] defendant is entitled to a fair tria 1982The majority, characterizing the admission of Dr. Lieberman's opinions as federal constitutional error (see Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454 [ 68 L.Ed.2d 359 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 ]), states that the "federal test" of harmless error must be applied. ( Ante, p. 525.) But even federal constitutional error may be deemed harmless where the evidence of defendant's guilt is "overwhelming." ( Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 287 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ].) As expressed by the high court in a recent case applying the Harrington rule, "`[A] defendant is entitled to a fair tria | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.