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 3 courts 1968–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bostrom v. County of San Bernardinogreen1 sentence2016(Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663 [“summary judgment cannot be denied on a ground not raised by the pleadings” (italics omitted)].) Having so concluded, we further conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Roth’s motion for a new trial and granting the Bainses’ motion for attorneys’ fees. 17 III. | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Andersongreen1 sentence2015(See Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 124 ["it is the gravamen of the wrong alleged in the pleadings, not simply the resulting injury, which determines whether an individual action lies"].) Plikaytis contends she pleaded sufficient facts to state the second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on an asserted conspiracy to transfer funds. | 1 | 1 |
Roth v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004Importation of the material violated the Tariff Act of 1930. 8 (31 Photographs, at p. 351.) Although the New York federal district court applied the now-overruled Roth test defining obscenity (Roth v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 476, 488-89 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, 1509-1510 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 ] (Roth) [prurient interest must be evaluated by its appeal to the “average” person]), 9 the court recounted older cases permitting doctors to possess obscene medical books and to import materials. 2004Importation of the material violated the Tariff Act of 1930. 8 (31 Photographs, at p. 351.) Although the New York federal district court applied the now-overruled Roth test defining obscenity (Roth v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 476, 488-89 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, 1509-1510 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 ] (Roth) [prurient interest must be evaluated by its appeal to the “average” person]), 9 the court recounted older cases permitting doctors to possess obscene medical books and to import materials. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences1998It is thus properly analyzed as a mistake of law; in other words, a mistake occurring “ ‘when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts.’ ” (Moore v. State of California (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 722 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], citing Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921 [ 242 P.2d 22 ].) The trial court determined that Roth’s mistake as to the accrual date was unjustified. 1998It is thus properly analyzed as a mistake of law; in other words, a mistake occurring “ ‘when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts.’ ” (Moore v. State of California (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 722 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], citing Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921 [ 242 P.2d 22 ].) The trial court determined that Roth’s mistake as to the accrual date was unjustified. | 1 | 1 |
Baratti v. Barattigreen2 sentences1998It is thus properly analyzed as a mistake of law; in other words, a mistake occurring “ ‘when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts.’ ” (Moore v. State of California (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 722 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], citing Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921 [ 242 P.2d 22 ].) The trial court determined that Roth’s mistake as to the accrual date was unjustified. 1998It is thus properly analyzed as a mistake of law; in other words, a mistake occurring “ ‘when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts.’ ” (Moore v. State of California (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 722 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 847 ], citing Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921 [ 242 P.2d 22 ].) The trial court determined that Roth’s mistake as to the accrual date was unjustified. | 1 | 1 |
Fish v. Guevaragreen2 sentences1997(Fish v. Guevara (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 142, 147-148 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 ].) Even had the ruling on costs been properly appealed, we would have to affirm it on the ground that appellant fails to show any abuse of discretion, as the record fails to contain the defendants’ memorandum of costs, opposition that may have been filed to plaintiff’s motion, the order awarding costs, or the record of the hearing on Roth’s motion to tax costs. 1997(Fish v. Guevara (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 142, 147-148 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 ].) Even had the ruling on costs been properly appealed, we would have to affirm it on the ground that appellant fails to show any abuse of discretion, as the record fails to contain the defendants’ memorandum of costs, opposition that may have been filed to plaintiff’s motion, the order awarding costs, or the record of the hearing on Roth’s motion to tax costs. | 1 | 1 |
Redrup v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1968In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit 1968In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit | 1 | 1 |
A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts"green2 sentences1968In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit 1968In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mishkin v. New York
green
2 sentences1977The Supreme Court rejected this argument in the following language, in 383 U.S. at pages 508-509 [ 16 L.Ed.2d at page 62 ]: “Where the material is designed for and primarily disseminated to a clearly defined deviant sexual group, rather than the public at large, the prurient-appeal requirement of the Roth test is satisfied if the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex of the members of that group. 1977The Supreme Court rejected this argument in the following language, in 383 U.S. at pages 508-509 [ 16 L.Ed.2d at page 62 ]: “Where the material is designed for and primarily disseminated to a clearly defined deviant sexual group, rather than the public at large, the prurient-appeal requirement of the Roth test is satisfied if the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex of the members of that group. | 2 | 1972–1977 |
People v. McKelvy
green
2 sentences2007(Id. at p. 215, fn. 3.) The appellate court, accepting the trial court’s factual finding that a “command” had been given (ibid..), agreed that a detention had occurred (id. at p. 215) because when the officer shone the spotlight, stopped the car, the deputies got out, and the command was given, “a reasonable person would not believe himself or herself free to leave” (ibid.). 4 In People v. McKelvy (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 1027 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 661 ], four officers in a patrol car encountered the defendant at 3:00 a.m. 2007(Id. at p. 215, fn. 3.) The appellate court, accepting the trial court’s factual finding that a “command” had been given (ibid..), agreed that a detention had occurred (id. at p. 215) because when the officer shone the spotlight, stopped the car, the deputies got out, and the command was given, “a reasonable person would not believe himself or herself free to leave” (ibid.). 4 In People v. McKelvy (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 1027 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 661 ], four officers in a patrol car encountered the defendant at 3:00 a.m. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Miller v. California
green
2 sentences2004(Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 419 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 ] (Miller).) 10 As indicated in 31 Photographs, Roth quoted language from Model Penal Code (Tent. 2004(Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 419 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 ] (Miller).) 10 As indicated in 31 Photographs, Roth quoted language from Model Penal Code (Tent. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. Itt Continental Baking Company, Inc., William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. Itt Continental Baking Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence1994The law does not require a plaintiff to join all coconspirators in the action. “[Ajntitrust coconspirators are jointly and severally liable for all damages caused by the conspiracy” (William Inglis, Etc. v. ITT Continental Baking Co. (9th Cir. 1981) 668 F.2d 1014, 1052-1053 ); thus a plaintiff may choose to sue any or all of them. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Zeitlin v. Arnebergh
green
2 sentences1972Respondent counters with case citations as to still other publications which have been held obscene as that term is defined in Roth, supra, as well as its testimonial evidence of the obscenity of “Love Together.” Having reviewed the book, as this court must under Zeitlin v. Arnebergh (1963) 59 Cal.2d 901 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 383 P.2d 152 , 10 A.L.R.3d 707 ] and applying the three-pronged Roth test which was enacted into the definition of “Obscene,” 1 this court has no difficulty in stating that the dominant theme of the book taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in nudity and sex. 1972Respondent counters with case citations as to still other publications which have been held obscene as that term is defined in Roth, supra, as well as its testimonial evidence of the obscenity of “Love Together.” Having reviewed the book, as this court must under Zeitlin v. Arnebergh (1963) 59 Cal.2d 901 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 800 , 383 P.2d 152 , 10 A.L.R.3d 707 ] and applying the three-pronged Roth test which was enacted into the definition of “Obscene,” 1 this court has no difficulty in stating that the dominant theme of the book taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in nudity and sex. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Stanley v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], referring to Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ].) The last paragraph of the majority opinion in People v. Luros, supra at page 93 of 4 Cal.3d, reads as follows: “Therefore we find that Stanley , as the United States Supreme Court expressly stated, does not impair Roth and the cases following it. 1972(People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], referring to Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ].) The last paragraph of the majority opinion in People v. Luros, supra at page 93 of 4 Cal.3d, reads as follows: “Therefore we find that Stanley , as the United States Supreme Court expressly stated, does not impair Roth and the cases following it. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
In Re Van Geldern
green
2 sentences1972(Mishkin v. New York (1966) 383 U.S. 502 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 56 , 86 S.Ct. 958 ]; In re van Geldern (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 838 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 592 ].) Finally, respondent concludes that the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not reversible. 1972(Mishkin v. New York (1966) 383 U.S. 502 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 56 , 86 S.Ct. 958 ]; In re van Geldern (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 838 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 592 ].) Finally, respondent concludes that the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not reversible. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
United States v. Reidel
green
2 sentences1972Six weeks after the decision of Luros by the Supreme Court of California, the Supreme Court of the United States decided United States v. Reidel (May 3, 1971) 402 U.S. 351 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 813 , 91 S.Ct. 1410 ] and in that decision arrived at the conclusion that the restriction of sales to adults only and to willing purchasers did not require a holding that the material could not constitutionally be suppressed as hardcore pornography assuming it met the Roth test. 1972Six weeks after the decision of Luros by the Supreme Court of California, the Supreme Court of the United States decided United States v. Reidel (May 3, 1971) 402 U.S. 351 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 813 , 91 S.Ct. 1410 ] and in that decision arrived at the conclusion that the restriction of sales to adults only and to willing purchasers did not require a holding that the material could not constitutionally be suppressed as hardcore pornography assuming it met the Roth test. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Luros
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], referring to Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ].) The last paragraph of the majority opinion in People v. Luros, supra at page 93 of 4 Cal.3d, reads as follows: “Therefore we find that Stanley , as the United States Supreme Court expressly stated, does not impair Roth and the cases following it. 1972(People v. Luros (1971) 4 Cal.3d 84 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 480 P.2d 633 ], referring to Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 542 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 ].) The last paragraph of the majority opinion in People v. Luros, supra at page 93 of 4 Cal.3d, reads as follows: “Therefore we find that Stanley , as the United States Supreme Court expressly stated, does not impair Roth and the cases following it. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day
green
2 sentences1968In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit 1968In Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) 383 U.S. 413, 418 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 , 86 S.Ct. 975 ] a plurality opinion (Brennan and Fortas, JJ., and Warren, C.J.) modified the Roth test as follows: "Under this [ Roth ] definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly wit | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.