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 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bradfordgreen1 sentence2025(See People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1056 [defendant’s statements to detective that he killed victim to eliminate her as witness to sexual assault substantially supported that his taking of her property “was not the primary motivating factor for the murder”]; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 529–530 [defendant’s statements to police that he took victim’s rings from trash can after raping and murdering her was substantial evidence warranting lesser included theft instruction]; Ramkeesoon, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 351, 349–350 [defendant’s testimony that he stabbed victim to esca | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Aufmuthgreen2 sentences1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Lucasgreen2 sentences1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Roeschgreen2 sentences1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Slatergreen2 sentences1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Clarkgreen2 sentences1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 1990Clyde cites four cases where the reviewing court found no error in the award of spousal support based on the wife’s evidence of need, even though the husband was able to pay more: In re Marriage of Slater (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 686 ]; In re Marriage of Aufmuth (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 446, 458-459 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 668 ], overruled on another ground in In re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 853 , 614 P.2d 285 ]; In re Marriage of Roesch (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 96, 103 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 586 ]; In re Marriage of Clark (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 417, 425-426 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vargasgreen2 sentences1989The reviewing court found the error was compounded by former CALJIC No. 2.61, 2 which improperly allowed the jury to “draw an inference from defendant’s silence if they [could] use it along with some other evidence.” (Id. at p. 45.) The Williams court reversed based on these and other errors. • In People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 474 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 15 , 509 P.2d 959 ], the prosecutor stated in his closing remarks, “And there is no denial at all that [the defendants] were there.” After defense counsel objected, the trial court admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement. 1989The reviewing court found the error was compounded by former CALJIC No. 2.61, 2 which improperly allowed the jury to “draw an inference from defendant’s silence if they [could] use it along with some other evidence.” (Id. at p. 45.) The Williams court reversed based on these and other errors. • In People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 474 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 15 , 509 P.2d 959 ], the prosecutor stated in his closing remarks, “And there is no denial at all that [the defendants] were there.” After defense counsel objected, the trial court admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Millard
green
2 sentences2016(Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 37 .) The reviewing court found no error in the trial court's use of comparative fault principles in determining the amount of restitution "when the victim's negligence was also a substantial factor in causing his or her economic losses." (Id. at p. 41.) Here, the trial court did not find that the victims bore "substantial responsibility" for their injuries, or numerically allocate the parties' comparative negligence. 2016(Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 37 .) The reviewing court found no error in the trial court's use of comparative fault principles in determining the amount of restitution "when the victim's negligence was also a substantial factor in causing his or her economic losses." (Id. at p. 41.) Here, the trial court did not find that the victims bore "substantial responsibility" for their injuries, or numerically allocate the parties' comparative negligence. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1056 [defendant’s statements to detective that he killed victim to eliminate her as witness to sexual assault substantially supported that his taking of her property “was not the primary motivating factor for the murder”]; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 529–530 [defendant’s statements to police that he took victim’s rings from trash can after raping and murdering her was substantial evidence warranting lesser included theft instruction]; Ramkeesoon, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 351, 349–350 [defendant’s testimony that he stabbed victim to esca | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Ramkeesoon
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1056 [defendant’s statements to detective that he killed victim to eliminate her as witness to sexual assault substantially supported that his taking of her property “was not the primary motivating factor for the murder”]; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 529–530 [defendant’s statements to police that he took victim’s rings from trash can after raping and murdering her was substantial evidence warranting lesser included theft instruction]; Ramkeesoon, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 351, 349–350 [defendant’s testimony that he stabbed victim to esca | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Daggs
green
1 sentence2025(Ibid.) The court acknowledged that a “briefcase is property of a kind in which the owner . . . normally has a strong expectation of privacy.” (Id. at p. 666.) But leaving the briefcase in “an unlocked burned-out automobile at the side of a highway in the country can fairly be thought to have a much lower expectation of privacy.” (Id. at p. 667.) Similarly, in People v. Daggs (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 361 (Daggs), the reviewing court found no error in the trial court’s determination that a defendant abandoned his cell phone at the scene of a robbery by accidentally dropping it and failing to reco | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Gibson
neutral
1 sentence2024(People v. Gibson, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 1157 .) Similarly, here, the set of exhibits admitted at trial was later recreated by the parties, submitted to the trial court, and made available both to Dawson-Dixon and this court in connection with this appeal. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2014A cause of injury is an act that sets in motion a chain of events that proceed a direct, natural and possible consequence of the act, the injury, and without which the injury would not occur.’” (Id. at pp. 346-347.) The reviewing court found error in the court’s latter comments, stating, “The instruction expressly equates ‘personally inflict’ with ‘proximate cause.’” (Rodriguez, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 347 .) However, “[t]o ‘personally inflict’ an injury is to directly cause an injury, not just to proximately cause it.” (Ibid.) The appellate court concluded the trial court’s instruction wa | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Torres
green
2 sentences1996This expert explanation concerning acute discriminatory powers would provide a basis for the jury to understand how at the time of the shooting [the batterer's] violence had, in the defendant's mind, passed from the `normal' and tolerable into the `abnormal' and life-threatening." ( 488 N.Y.S.2d at p. 362 .) By placing the final incidence of abuse in context, the testimony might enlighten the jury's assessment of a reasonable person's perceptions as well. 1996This expert explanation concerning acute discriminatory powers would provide a basis for the jury to understand how at the time of the shooting [the batterer’s] violence had, in the defendant’s mind, passed from the ‘normal’ and tolerable into the ‘abnormal’ and life-threatening.” ( 488 N.Y.S.2d at p. 362 .) By placing the final incidence of abuse in context, the testimony might enlighten the jury’s assessment of a reasonable person’s perceptions as well. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.