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 1906–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. County of Buttegreen2 sentences1943(See Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 50 [ 61 P.2d 516 ].) There is nothing in the last-cited ease contrary to these views. 1943(See Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 50 [ 61 P.2d 516 ].) There is nothing in the last-cited ease contrary to these views. | 1 | 2 |
In re Hillgreen1 sentence2024(See In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247 , 1259–1261 [defense counsel ineffective for failing to present expert testimony on PCP ingestion]; In re Hill (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1026 [defense counsel ineffective for failing to request colposcopic images or obtain assistance of independent medical expert to present medical defenses to sexual offenses]; Lindstadt v. Keane (2d Cir. 2001) 239 F.3d 191 , 201–204 [defense counsel ineffective based on cumulative trial errors, including failure to challenge prosecution expert’s vague references to medical studies purportedly supporting inculpatory op | 1 | 1 |
People v. Escobargreen2 sentences2021(People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750 (Escobar)); see, e.g., People v. Saez (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1189 .) As the Escobar court explained: “It is well settled that the determination of great bodily injury is essentially a question of fact, not of law. ‘ “Whether the harm resulting to the victim . . . constitutes great bodily injury is a question of fact for the jury. [Citation.] If there is sufficient evidence to sustain the 5 jury’s finding of great bodily injury, we are bound to accept it, even though the circumstances might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.” ’ [ 2021(People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750 (Escobar)); see, e.g., People v. Saez (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1189 .) As the Escobar court explained: “It is well settled that the determination of great bodily injury is essentially a question of fact, not of law. ‘ “Whether the harm resulting to the victim . . . constitutes great bodily injury is a question of fact for the jury. [Citation.] If there is sufficient evidence to sustain the 5 jury’s finding of great bodily injury, we are bound to accept it, even though the circumstances might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.” ’ [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Saezgreen1 sentence2021(People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750 (Escobar)); see, e.g., People v. Saez (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1189 .) As the Escobar court explained: “It is well settled that the determination of great bodily injury is essentially a question of fact, not of law. ‘ “Whether the harm resulting to the victim . . . constitutes great bodily injury is a question of fact for the jury. [Citation.] If there is sufficient evidence to sustain the 5 jury’s finding of great bodily injury, we are bound to accept it, even though the circumstances might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.” ’ [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ochoagreen2 sentences2013We find the evidence in this case was sufficient to establish the specific intent requirement of the gang enhancement statute. 5 In People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650 , the appellate court criticized the Ramon court’s insufficiency analysis, stating: “the statute requires only that a defendant act ‘with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members . . . .’ (§ 186.22, subd. (b), italics added.) We would find the evidence in Ramon sufficient to meet the specific intent prong of the statute.” ( 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 661, fn. 6 .) 11 DISPOSITIO 2013We find the evidence in this case was sufficient to establish the specific intent requirement of the gang enhancement statute. 5 In People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650 , the appellate court criticized the Ramon court’s insufficiency analysis, stating: “the statute requires only that a defendant act ‘with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members . . . .’ (§ 186.22, subd. (b), italics added.) We would find the evidence in Ramon sufficient to meet the specific intent prong of the statute.” ( 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 661, fn. 6 .) 11 DISPOSITIO | 1 | 1 |
People v. Staplesgreen2 sentences1985These acts, therefore, constituted the "actual commencement of his plan" and were sufficient to support an attempt. ( People v. Staples (1970) 6 Cal. App.3d 61, 68 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 589 ].) But for Carl Jr.'s abrupt decision to leave the apartment, it is likely that these steps would have resulted in a completed violation of section 288. ( People v. Werner, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 221-222.) Viewing the evidence in this light, this court cannot say that the trial court's first degree murder verdict was not supported by substantial evidence of attempted lewd or lascivious conduct under a felony-mu 1985These acts, therefore, constituted the "actual commencement of his plan" and were sufficient to support an attempt. ( People v. Staples (1970) 6 Cal. App.3d 61, 68 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 589 ].) But for Carl Jr.'s abrupt decision to leave the apartment, it is likely that these steps would have resulted in a completed violation of section 288. ( People v. Werner, supra, 16 Cal.2d at pp. 221-222.) Viewing the evidence in this light, this court cannot say that the trial court's first degree murder verdict was not supported by substantial evidence of attempted lewd or lascivious conduct under a felony-mu | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dillongreen1 sentence1985As to the Carl Jr. killing, resolution *700 of this claim is unnecessary, since the verdict rests on sufficient evidence under felony murder. ( People v. Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 477, fn. 24.) As to the 1976 Bell Gardens killings, the contention must fail. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Sixto
green
1 sentence2024(See In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247 , 1259–1261 [defense counsel ineffective for failing to present expert testimony on PCP ingestion]; In re Hill (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1026 [defense counsel ineffective for failing to request colposcopic images or obtain assistance of independent medical expert to present medical defenses to sexual offenses]; Lindstadt v. Keane (2d Cir. 2001) 239 F.3d 191 , 201–204 [defense counsel ineffective based on cumulative trial errors, including failure to challenge prosecution expert’s vague references to medical studies purportedly supporting inculpatory op | 1 | 2024–2024 |
George Lindstadt v. John P. Keane, Superintendent
green
1 sentence2024(See In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247 , 1259–1261 [defense counsel ineffective for failing to present expert testimony on PCP ingestion]; In re Hill (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1026 [defense counsel ineffective for failing to request colposcopic images or obtain assistance of independent medical expert to present medical defenses to sexual offenses]; Lindstadt v. Keane (2d Cir. 2001) 239 F.3d 191 , 201–204 [defense counsel ineffective based on cumulative trial errors, including failure to challenge prosecution expert’s vague references to medical studies purportedly supporting inculpatory op | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Silva v. Babak S.
green
1 sentence2021(In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540 .) In both instances, the reviewing court must “ ‘presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence’ ” and “ ‘make all reasonable inferences that support the finding of the juvenile court.’ ” (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1089 .) b. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Matthew A.
green
1 sentence2021(In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540 .) In both instances, the reviewing court must “ ‘presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence’ ” and “ ‘make all reasonable inferences that support the finding of the juvenile court.’ ” (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1089 .) b. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Morris
green
2 sentences2016He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the *774 jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539 , 606, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 .) We are not at liberty to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility issues. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199 , 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 .) If the verdict is support 2016He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the *774 jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539 , 606, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 .) We are not at liberty to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility issues. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199 , 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 .) If the verdict is support | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ochoa
green
2 sentences2016He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the *774 jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539 , 606, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 .) We are not at liberty to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility issues. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199 , 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 .) If the verdict is support 2016He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the *774 jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539 , 606, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 .) We are not at liberty to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility issues. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199 , 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 .) If the verdict is support | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences2016He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the *774 jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539 , 606, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 .) We are not at liberty to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility issues. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199 , 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 .) If the verdict is support 2016He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the *774 jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539 , 606, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 .) We are not at liberty to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility issues. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199 , 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 .) If the verdict is support | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-578 .) Moreover, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kline v. San Francisco Unified School District
green
2 sentences1941(Kline v. San Francisco Unified School District, 40 Cal. App. (2d) 174 [ 104 Pac. (2d) 661 ].) “ Plaintiff’s final contention is that defendant is estopped to raise the defense of the insufficiency of the claim because of its failure to specially plead such defense in the answer. 1941(Kline v. San Francisco Unified School District, 40 Cal.App.2d 174 [104 PaCal.2d 661].)" [3] "Plaintiff's final contention is that defendant is estopped to raise the defense of the insufficiency of the claim because of its failure to specially plead such defense in the answer. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Maier v. Freeman
green
1 sentence1927The property in question consisted of a number of barrels of olives, cases of tomato puree, tomato oil, etc. The facts set forth in the claim showed that the merchandise had been pledged to the bank to secure a certain indebtedness due to the bank; that the bank, pursuant to certain agreements between itself and the owner *340 of the merchandise had permitted him to take and have possession of said merchandise, to remove the same from the warehouse wherein the merchandise had been stored pursuant to the pledge, and to take the same to his own premises on Front Street in order to sell and dispo | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Ferrer v. Home Mutual Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1906Co., 47 Cal. 416 .) Instead of so doing, however, in his brief before the superior court he urged the insufficiency of this defense. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.