10 California opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2023 4 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. Ortizgreen1 sentence2021(See Ortiz, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 984 [discussing justifiable requests for delay].) While Halpern told the trial court he wanted to explore the validity of part of Herrera’s plea in light of changed district attorney policies, he also told the court they did not wish to withdraw the plea. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.green1 sentence2020(See § 2699, subd. (l)(2); see also Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [“PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected,” italics added].) For all the above reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s order denying Herrera’s motion to vacate the Starks judgment, and instruct the trial court to vacate that judgment and conduct further proceedings to determine whether the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.’ ” ’ [ | 1 | 1 |
Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc.green1 sentence2020(See § 2699, subd. (l)(2); see also Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [“PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected,” italics added].) For all the above reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s order denying Herrera’s motion to vacate the Starks judgment, and instruct the trial court to vacate that judgment and conduct further proceedings to determine whether the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.’ ” ’ [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Britogreen2 sentences1999(See, e.g., People v. Brito (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 316, 323-324 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 441 ] [analyzing the sufficiency of evidence of deliberation and premeditation to support a convic *1463 tion of attempted premeditated murder is the same as murder, using the three-prong test of People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pp. 26-27].) 9 Herrera’s claim that he understood this phrase to mean a fistfight was properly rejected by the jury in'view of the two recent murders as well as expert testimony that members of these gangs almost always used guns in their confrontations with rivals. 10 At our invitati 1999(See, e.g., People v. Brito (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 316, 323-324 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 441 ] [analyzing the sufficiency of evidence of deliberation and premeditation to support a convic *1463 tion of attempted premeditated murder is the same as murder, using the three-prong test of People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pp. 26-27].) 9 Herrera’s claim that he understood this phrase to mean a fistfight was properly rejected by the jury in'view of the two recent murders as well as expert testimony that members of these gangs almost always used guns in their confrontations with rivals. 10 At our invitati | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Soldate v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023(Soldate v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1073 ; rule 8.100(a)(2); Filbin v. Fitzgerald 3 (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 154, 173 .) We therefore do not address Herrera’s arguments concerning this order. 3 II. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Herrera
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Herrera (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 167, 173 .)” (Montiel, at p. 921, fn. 1.) The Supreme Court in Montiel was able to determine the appeal before it without resolving that conflict because, in that case, the defendant had failed to show good cause under either the Lutman or Morgan/Herrera standard. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Filbin v. Fitzgerald
green
1 sentence2023(Soldate v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1073 ; rule 8.100(a)(2); Filbin v. Fitzgerald 3 (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 154, 173 .) We therefore do not address Herrera’s arguments concerning this order. 3 II. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Samayoa
green
1 sentence2023When a claim of prosecutorial misconduct “focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question [of the comments’ prejudicial impact] is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 .) Here, the one sentence Herrera focuses on was hardly the prosecutor’s whole argument. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ziani Homeowners Ass'n v. Brookfield Ziani LLC
green
2 sentences2020Herrera’s reliance on Ziani, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th 274 is misplaced. 2020Herrera’s reliance on Ziani, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th 274 is misplaced. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1089, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8164 Maria Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, Robert Beaver, Applicant-Intervenors
green
1 sentence2020As the Ninth Circuit stated in Alaniz, the judgment “is already being fulfilled; to countermand it now would create havoc and postpone the needed relief.” (Alaniz, supra, 572 F.2d at p. 659 .) For all the foregoing reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Herrera’s motion to intervene was untimely. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hill
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 352–353; People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1103 .) Further, we have already rejected Herrera’s claim that his sentence is cruel and unusual, and we decline to reconsider that conclusion, which is the law of the case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Martinez v. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS
green
1 sentence2014The legislative purposes behind section 1170, subdivision (e), are to show compassion for dying or permanently medically incapacitated prisoners, and to save the state money by reducing the number of prisoners who must receive expensive end-of-life treatment. ( Martinez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 590-592.) Although it is debatable whether a prisoner has a right to compassion, Herrera does call into question the application of Pritchett and its forbears to the situation presented here, as requested by the People. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 352–353; People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1103 .) Further, we have already rejected Herrera’s claim that his sentence is cruel and unusual, and we decline to reconsider that conclusion, which is the law of the case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Andrew Khac Vu
green
2 sentences2009Thereafter, however, the Fourth District, Division Three decided People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 765 ]. 2009Thereafter, however, the Fourth District, Division Three decided People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 765 ]. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
The Hale Company v. Lea
green
1 sentence2006In light of that function, the Supreme Court concluded that the director exceeded his authority and thus, was not protected under Civil *617 Code section 47, subdivision (a), when he communicated facts ascertained by him outside of California, to the Washington Department of Agriculture. ( 191 Cal. at p. 207 .) For these reasons, on the record before it, the trial court was correct in granting Herrera’s motion to strike. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Douglas
green
1 sentence1999(See ante, fn. 7.) 13 Reliance on People v. Douglas, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th 1385 as authority that section 654 bars sentencing on both the street terrorism and the enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b) is misplaced. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.