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.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2026(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.47(c)(2) [to maintain confidentiality, a party may file a motion to file a document under seal]; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 617, fn. 38 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 , and superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 356 .) 2 on her interview with Pearson and review of the police report and prior psychological evaluations of Pearson, Harris agreed with Pearson’s previous diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Amphetamine-Stimulant Use Disorder | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coddingtongreen1 sentence2026(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.47(c)(2) [to maintain confidentiality, a party may file a motion to file a document under seal]; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 617, fn. 38 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 , and superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 356 .) 2 on her interview with Pearson and review of the police report and prior psychological evaluations of Pearson, Harris agreed with Pearson’s previous diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Amphetamine-Stimulant Use Disorder | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2026Because the record suggests the trial court did not understand that its discretion in deciding Pearson’s motion was constrained by section 1001.36’s narrow definition of “public safety,” we cannot be confident that the court was aware of the scope of its discretion under section 1001.36.3 “ ‘Defendants are entitled to . . . decisions made in the exercise of the “informed discretion” of the . . . court.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 (Gutierrez).) “ ‘A court which is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers [cannot] exercise that “informed discretion.” ’ ” (Ibid.) | 1 | 1 |
Farahani v. San Diego Community College Districtgreen2 sentences2010Regarding Pearson’s attempt to assert the equitable doctrine of laches, a party who seeks equity must also do equity. “ ‘The unclean hands doctrine “closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.” ’ [Citation.]” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Intemat., Ltd., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 ; accord, Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1495 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 900 ]; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 846 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 780 ].) The 2010Regarding Pearson’s attempt to assert the equitable doctrine of laches, a party who seeks equity must also do equity. “ ‘The unclean hands doctrine “closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.” ’ [Citation.]” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Intemat., Ltd., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 ; accord, Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1495 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 900 ]; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 846 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 780 ].) The | 1 | 1 |
Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.green2 sentences2010Regarding Pearson’s attempt to assert the equitable doctrine of laches, a party who seeks equity must also do equity. “ ‘The unclean hands doctrine “closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.” ’ [Citation.]” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Intemat., Ltd., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 ; accord, Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1495 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 900 ]; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 846 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 780 ].) The 2010Regarding Pearson’s attempt to assert the equitable doctrine of laches, a party who seeks equity must also do equity. “ ‘The unclean hands doctrine “closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.” ’ [Citation.]” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Intemat., Ltd., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 ; accord, Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1495 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 900 ]; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 846 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 780 ].) The | 1 | 1 |
People v. Scheidtgreen2 sentences2007(See Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 [“the reason for the rule is unclear”]; People v. Scheidt (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 162, 168 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 228 ] [same]; People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20, 29 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 15 ] (dis. opn. of Woods, J.) [same; rule “is of murky origin”].) 7 There is logic behind the rule prohibiting convictions for both a greater offense and a necessarily included offense: “If a defendant cannot commit the greater offense without committing the lesser, conviction of the greater is also conviction of the lesser. 2007(See Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 [“the reason for the rule is unclear”]; People v. Scheidt (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 162, 168 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 228 ] [same]; People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20, 29 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 15 ] (dis. opn. of Woods, J.) [same; rule “is of murky origin”].) 7 There is logic behind the rule prohibiting convictions for both a greater offense and a necessarily included offense: “If a defendant cannot commit the greater offense without committing the lesser, conviction of the greater is also conviction of the lesser. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rushgreen2 sentences2007(See Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 [“the reason for the rule is unclear”]; People v. Scheidt (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 162, 168 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 228 ] [same]; People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20, 29 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 15 ] (dis. opn. of Woods, J.) [same; rule “is of murky origin”].) 7 There is logic behind the rule prohibiting convictions for both a greater offense and a necessarily included offense: “If a defendant cannot commit the greater offense without committing the lesser, conviction of the greater is also conviction of the lesser. 2007(See Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 [“the reason for the rule is unclear”]; People v. Scheidt (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 162, 168 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 228 ] [same]; People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20, 29 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 15 ] (dis. opn. of Woods, J.) [same; rule “is of murky origin”].) 7 There is logic behind the rule prohibiting convictions for both a greater offense and a necessarily included offense: “If a defendant cannot commit the greater offense without committing the lesser, conviction of the greater is also conviction of the lesser. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pearsongreen2 sentences2007(See Moran, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 763 ; Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 .) Defendant counters that this issue is beyond the scope of issues on which we granted review, and, more importantly, the People offer no sound basis to abandon this long-standing rule. 2007(Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 ; Moran, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 763 .) Notwithstanding several cases which have questioned the foundation of the Pearson rule, including Pearson itself, we see no justification to modify the rule here. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2019(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (l962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) In our view, insofar as S.B. 1391 precludes the possibility of adult prosecution of a 15-year-old murderer, it is unconstitutional. 2019(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (l962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) In our view, insofar as S.B. 1391 precludes the possibility of adult prosecution of a 15-year-old murderer, it is unconstitutional. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Zamudio
green
1 sentence2026(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.47(c)(2) [to maintain confidentiality, a party may file a motion to file a document under seal]; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 617, fn. 38 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 , and superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 356 .) 2 on her interview with Pearson and review of the police report and prior psychological evaluations of Pearson, Harris agreed with Pearson’s previous diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Amphetamine-Stimulant Use Disorder | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
green
1 sentence2024(Pearson, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 680 .) Nor are we persuaded by Uber’s argument that Pearson’s analysis only applies when the arbitrator fails to explain its decision in writing and that, therefore, it is not applicable here because the arbitrator issued a written decision. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences2023(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [reversal is required only when “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error”].) Pearson’s claim of prejudice is based upon the presumption that the jury would have been able to consider Mariah’s statements for the truth of the matter asserted: that Mariah was recanting her allegations against Pearson. 49. 2023(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [reversal is required only when “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error”].) Pearson’s claim of prejudice is based upon the presumption that the jury would have been able to consider Mariah’s statements for the truth of the matter asserted: that Mariah was recanting her allegations against Pearson. 49. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things International, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2010Regarding Pearson’s attempt to assert the equitable doctrine of laches, a party who seeks equity must also do equity. “ ‘The unclean hands doctrine “closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.” ’ [Citation.]” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Intemat., Ltd., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 ; accord, Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1495 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 900 ]; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 846 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 780 ].) The | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Estate of Strader
green
1 sentence2010With respect to Pearson’s assertion the estate is final absent a showing of fraud, Pearson cites Estate of Strader, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at page 1004 , for this proposition. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Moran
green
2 sentences2007(See Moran, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 763 ; Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 .) Defendant counters that this issue is beyond the scope of issues on which we granted review, and, more importantly, the People offer no sound basis to abandon this long-standing rule. 2007(Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 355 ; Moran, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 763 .) Notwithstanding several cases which have questioned the foundation of the Pearson rule, including Pearson itself, we see no justification to modify the rule here. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Adams
green
2 sentences1992To the contrary, based on In re Adams (1975) 14 Cal.3d 629 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 73 , 536 P.2d 473 ], we conclude the Neal/Pearson rule has superseded Roberts insofar as Roberts is inconsistent. 1992To the contrary, based on In re Adams (1975) 14 Cal.3d 629 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 73 , 536 P.2d 473 ], we conclude the Neal/Pearson rule has superseded Roberts insofar as Roberts is inconsistent. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Bauer
green
1 sentence1988The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor, and if all the oifenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one.’ ” (Quoting People v. Bauer, supra, 1 Cal.3d 368, 376 .) | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Miller
green
1 sentence1988The court said: “We conclude that only one punishable offense of rape results from a single act of intercourse, though it may be chargeable in separate counts when accomplished under the varying circumstances specified in the subdivisions of section 261 of the Penal Code.” (Id. at p. 458, italics added.) Pearson’s analysis of Greer applies equally to Craig . 7 In People v. Miller, supra, 18 Cal.3d 873, 885 , the court observed: “The proscription against double punishment... is applicable where there is a course of conduct which violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transa | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.