iron bar (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

iron bar in California

10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Jonesgreen
calctapp · 1970 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “‘Suppose instead of being [the mother’s] kid this had happened to one of your 12 children.’” In People v. Jones (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 358, 363 (Jones), also cited by defendant, the defendant made an unprovoked attack on innocent victims, striking one of them with an iron bar.

2015The prosecutor appealed to the fears and emotions of the jurors by stating that the sons of the jurors and their girlfriends should not dare to ride motorcycles into the defendant’s area, because he “reacts very seriously.” (Id. at pp. 361-362.) The courts in both Pensinger and Jones held that the prosecutor’s statements were misconduct, but that the misconduct was not prejudicial, because there was no reasonable probability that either defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the jury been admonished by the trial court. ( Pensinger, supra, at pp. 1250-1251 ; Jones, supra, at

11
Sara M. v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 2005 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007As our Supreme Court recently noted, sometimes “ ‘[c]hildhood does not wait for the parent to become adequate.’ ” (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1016 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 , 116 P.3d 550 ].) For each and all of the above reasons, we hold that section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1) does not establish an iron rule that the parent of a dependent child who is over the age of three is entitled to, and must always receive, 12 months of reunification services.

2007As our Supreme Court recently noted, sometimes “ ‘[c]hildhood does not wait for the parent to become adequate.’ ” (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1016 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 , 116 P.3d 550 ].) For each and all of the above reasons, we hold that section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1) does not establish an iron rule that the parent of a dependent child who is over the age of three is entitled to, and must always receive, 12 months of reunification services.

11
People v. Faubergreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995Since the instruction given was not reasonably likely to have been understood as inviting the jurors to "weigh" each special circumstance twice ( People v. Fauber, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 858), it was neither deficient performance on counsel's part, nor prejudicial to defendant's case, to forego a special instruction. [25] In his reply brief defendant argues the prior acquittal was "necessarily based on an acceptance of the fact that Mr. Cain used neither an iron bar nor a rock...." The record does not support this claim.

11
Morton v. Manhattan Lunch Co.green
calctapp · 1940 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1949–1949
2 sentences

1949Plaintiff claims that the following instruction requested by defendant and given by the court is misleading: “You are instructed that there is no obligation on the part of the proprietor of business premises to give warning of an obvious danger or one which should have been perceived by the invitee through the ordinary use of his own senses.” Pour tests for recovery are outlined in Morton v. Manhattan Lunch Co., 41 Cal.App.2d 70, 72 [ 106 P.2d 212 ]: “Hence, a recovery cannot be had when the owner or occupant has no knowledge of the danger, where the plaintiff has such knowledge, where the dan

1949Plaintiff claims that the following instruction requested by defendant and given by the court is misleading: “You are instructed that there is no obligation on the part of the proprietor of business premises to give warning of an obvious danger or one which should have been perceived by the invitee through the ordinary use of his own senses.” Pour tests for recovery are outlined in Morton v. Manhattan Lunch Co., 41 Cal.App.2d 70, 72 [ 106 P.2d 212 ]: “Hence, a recovery cannot be had when the owner or occupant has no knowledge of the danger, where the plaintiff has such knowledge, where the dan

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Pensinger green
cal · 1991
1 sentence

2015The prosecutor appealed to the fears and emotions of the jurors by stating that the sons of the jurors and their girlfriends should not dare to ride motorcycles into the defendant’s area, because he “reacts very seriously.” (Id. at pp. 361-362.) The courts in both Pensinger and Jones held that the prosecutor’s statements were misconduct, but that the misconduct was not prejudicial, because there was no reasonable probability that either defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the jury been admonished by the trial court. ( Pensinger, supra, at pp. 1250-1251 ; Jones, supra, at

12015–2015
Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank green
· 1898
2 sentences

2009“The Federal Constitution imposes no restraints on the State in regard to unequal taxation.” (Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, supra, 170 U.S. at p. 295 .) “ ‘Indeed, this whole argument of a right under the Federal Constitution to challenge the tax law on the ground of inequality in the burdens resulting from the operation of the law’ ” has been “ ‘put at rest.’ ” (Id. at p. 296.) The Fourteenth Amendment “was not intended to compel the State to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation.” ( 170 U.S. at p. 295 .) The tax imposed by Proposition 63 is not arbitrary merely because a person ear

2009“The Federal Constitution imposes no restraints on the State in regard to unequal taxation.” (Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, supra, 170 U.S. at p. 295 .) “ ‘Indeed, this whole argument of a right under the Federal Constitution to challenge the tax law on the ground of inequality in the burdens resulting from the operation of the law’ ” has been “ ‘put at rest.’ ” (Id. at p. 296.) The Fourteenth Amendment “was not intended to compel the State to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation.” ( 170 U.S. at p. 295 .) The tax imposed by Proposition 63 is not arbitrary merely because a person ear

12009–2009
People v. White green
calctapp · 1963
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Lee green
calctapp · 1937
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Russell green
calctapp · 1943
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Helms green
calctapp · 1966
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Richardson green
calctapp · 1959
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Claborn green
calctapp · 1964
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Herd green
calctapp · 1963
2 sentences

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

1991Examples include a straight pin imbedded in an apple (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 269 ); a pillow (People v. Helms (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 484 ]); an automobile (People v. Claborn (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 38 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 132 ]); a knife (People v. Herd (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 847 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]); a large rock (People v. White (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 464 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]); a razor blade (People v. Richardson (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 238 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]); a fingernail file (People v. Russell (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 139 P.2d 661 ]); and an iron bar (People v. Lee

11991–1991
People v. Sears green
cal · 1970
2 sentences

1989(Id. at pp. 527-528.) In People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 711 , 465 P.2d 847 ], the merger doctrine was applied where the defendant had entered a house and attacked his wife and her daughter with an iron bar, killing the daughter.

1989(Id. at pp. 527-528.) In People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 711 , 465 P.2d 847 ], the merger doctrine was applied where the defendant had entered a house and attacked his wife and her daughter with an iron bar, killing the daughter.

11989–1989
Massiah v. United States green
scotus · 1964
1 sentence

1988We likewise reject defendant’s related claim under Massiah v. United States, supra, 377 U.S. 201 .

11988–1988
People v. Anderson green
cal · 1968
2 sentences

1988(See People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 447 P.2d 942 ].) Lastly, we reject out of hand defendant’s further arguments that the special findings were “unreliable, ambiguous, and meaningless surplusage,” and that defense counsel had no “notice of’ their “potential legal significance” or “opportunity to contest their factual basis.” The charges and special circumstance alleged in the information, as well as the record of proceedings on pretrial motions and the prosecutor’s opening statement, all belie these assertions.

1988(See People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 447 P.2d 942 ].) Lastly, we reject out of hand defendant’s further arguments that the special findings were “unreliable, ambiguous, and meaningless surplusage,” and that defense counsel had no “notice of’ their “potential legal significance” or “opportunity to contest their factual basis.” The charges and special circumstance alleged in the information, as well as the record of proceedings on pretrial motions and the prosecutor’s opening statement, all belie these assertions.

11988–1988
People v. Helsley green
calctapp · 1940
2 sentences

1961(People v. Ross, 61 Cal.App. 61 [ 214 P. 267 ] ; People v. Schafer, 161 Cal. 573 [ 119 P. 920 ]; People v. Helsley, 41 Cal.App.2d 935 [ 108 P.2d 97 ].) The finding of the jury in this regard and its acceptance of the more reasonable conclusion will not be disturbed.

1961(People v. Ross, 61 Cal.App. 61 [ 214 P. 267 ] ; People v. Schafer, 161 Cal. 573 [ 119 P. 920 ]; People v. Helsley, 41 Cal.App.2d 935 [ 108 P.2d 97 ].) The finding of the jury in this regard and its acceptance of the more reasonable conclusion will not be disturbed.

11961–1961
People v. Ross neutral
calctapp · 1923
2 sentences

1961(People v. Ross, 61 Cal.App. 61 [ 214 P. 267 ] ; People v. Schafer, 161 Cal. 573 [ 119 P. 920 ]; People v. Helsley, 41 Cal.App.2d 935 [ 108 P.2d 97 ].) The finding of the jury in this regard and its acceptance of the more reasonable conclusion will not be disturbed.

1961(People v. Ross, 61 Cal.App. 61 [ 214 P. 267 ] ; People v. Schafer, 161 Cal. 573 [ 119 P. 920 ]; People v. Helsley, 41 Cal.App.2d 935 [ 108 P.2d 97 ].) The finding of the jury in this regard and its acceptance of the more reasonable conclusion will not be disturbed.

11961–1961
People v. Schafer green
· 1911
2 sentences

1961(People v. Ross, 61 Cal.App. 61 [ 214 P. 267 ] ; People v. Schafer, 161 Cal. 573 [ 119 P. 920 ]; People v. Helsley, 41 Cal.App.2d 935 [ 108 P.2d 97 ].) The finding of the jury in this regard and its acceptance of the more reasonable conclusion will not be disturbed.

1961(People v. Ross, 61 Cal.App. 61 [ 214 P. 267 ] ; People v. Schafer, 161 Cal. 573 [ 119 P. 920 ]; People v. Helsley, 41 Cal.App.2d 935 [ 108 P.2d 97 ].) The finding of the jury in this regard and its acceptance of the more reasonable conclusion will not be disturbed.

11961–1961
People v. Carr neutral
calctapp · 1933
2 sentences

1937Officer Washburn was otherwise kicked and beaten about the body. *170 While it is true that an iron bar may be a deadly weapon (People v. Carr, 131 Cal. App. 644 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 967 ]), it is not a deadly weapon as a matter of law.

1937Officer Washburn was otherwise kicked and beaten about the body. *170 While it is true that an iron bar may be a deadly weapon (People v. Carr, 131 Cal. App. 644 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 967 ]), it is not a deadly weapon as a matter of law.

11937–1937

Where else courts name it

KY 22 (1936–2026) NY 20 (1898–2013) PA 19 (1915–2021) CA 10 (1937–2015) IA 10 (1895–2017) MI 7 (1901–2022) AL 7 (1887–2016) IN 6 (1935–2014) VA 6 (1934–2015) TX 6 (1924–2022) ND 5 (1936–1993) MD 4 (1890–1991) MA 4 (1917–1992) LA 4 (1903–1973) WA 4 (1923–2008) IL 4 (1892–1987) NJ 3 (1958–2011) NC 3 (1886–2004) PR 3 (1938–1954) WV 3 (1908–1934) MO 3 (1916–1981) HI 3 (1901–1982) KS 3 (1897–1937) CO 2 (2026–2026) SD 2 (1933–1972) MT 2 (1933–1935) OH 2 (1934–1995) VT 2 (1898–1925) FL 2 (1977–1977) SC 2 (1910–1934) OR 2 (1944–1963) RI 2 (1907–1925)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check