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 1976–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1995See footnote, ante, page 530. 1 Unless otherwise specified, further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The italicized language represents the revision to this instruction based upon People v. Wallace, supra. 3 In People v. Gaglione, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th 1291 , this court agreed that the traditional definition of a lewd act in CALJIC No. 10.41 was erroneous, reasoning that it could be construed to permit conviction of the defendant based on an “innocuous touching.” We explained that, “[i]t has long been held that a ‘lewd or lascivious act’ within the meaning of section 288 is not co 1995See footnote, ante, page 530. 1 Unless otherwise specified, further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The italicized language represents the revision to this instruction based upon People v. Wallace, supra. 3 In People v. Gaglione, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th 1291 , this court agreed that the traditional definition of a lewd act in CALJIC No. 10.41 was erroneous, reasoning that it could be construed to permit conviction of the defendant based on an “innocuous touching.” We explained that, “[i]t has long been held that a ‘lewd or lascivious act’ within the meaning of section 288 is not co | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gaglionegreen2 sentences1995See footnote, ante, page 530. 1 Unless otherwise specified, further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The italicized language represents the revision to this instruction based upon People v. Wallace, supra. 3 In People v. Gaglione, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th 1291 , this court agreed that the traditional definition of a lewd act in CALJIC No. 10.41 was erroneous, reasoning that it could be construed to permit conviction of the defendant based on an “innocuous touching.” We explained that, “[i]t has long been held that a ‘lewd or lascivious act’ within the meaning of section 288 is not co 1995See footnote, ante, page 530. 1 Unless otherwise specified, further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The italicized language represents the revision to this instruction based upon People v. Wallace, supra. 3 In People v. Gaglione, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th 1291 , this court agreed that the traditional definition of a lewd act in CALJIC No. 10.41 was erroneous, reasoning that it could be construed to permit conviction of the defendant based on an “innocuous touching.” We explained that, “[i]t has long been held that a ‘lewd or lascivious act’ within the meaning of section 288 is not co | 1 | 1 |
Raven v. Deukmejiangreen2 sentences1991XIII A) "necessarily and inevitably" would result in loss of home rule]; see Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349 ["nothing on the face of the challenged measures [Prop. 115] `necessarily or inevitably' compels" dire economic consequences predicted by petitioners in context of single-subject rule challenge].) In Amador, we considered and rejected a similar revision challenge based on the predicted dire economic consequences to home rule in California arising from the property tax limitations of Proposition 13. 1991XIII A) “necessarily and inevitably” would result in loss of home rule]; see Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349 [“nothing on the face of the challenged measures [Prop. 115] ‘necessarily or inevitably’ compels” dire economic consequences predicted by petitioners in context of single-subject rule challenge].) In Amador, we considered and rejected a similar revision challenge based on the predicted dire economic consequences to home rule in California arising from the property tax limitations of Proposition 13. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Californiagreen2 sentences1976Since Miller permits the imposition of a lesser burden on the prosecution in this phase of the proof of obscenity than did Memoirs , and since the jury convicted these petitioners on the basis of an instruction concededly based on the Memoirs test, petitioners derive no benefit from the revision of that test in Miller . ” (418 U.S. at pp. 116-117 [ 41 L.Ed.2d at p. 620 ].) However, plaintiff’s vagueness argument is based primarily on part (b) of the Miller test—the requirement that material proscribed as obscene depict or describe, in a patently offensive manner, sexual conduct “specifically d 1976Since Miller permits the imposition of a lesser burden on the prosecution in this phase of the proof of obscenity than did Memoirs , and since the jury convicted these petitioners on the basis of an instruction concededly based on the Memoirs test, petitioners derive no benefit from the revision of that test in Miller . ” (418 U.S. at pp. 116-117 [ 41 L.Ed.2d at p. 620 ].) However, plaintiff’s vagueness argument is based primarily on part (b) of the Miller test—the requirement that material proscribed as obscene depict or describe, in a patently offensive manner, sexual conduct “specifically d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brosnahan v. Brown
green
2 sentences2009The opinion also observed that "adoption of defendant's position might effectively bar the people from ever directly reinstating the death penalty, despite the apparent belief of a very substantial majority of our citizens in the necessity and appropriateness of the ultimate punishment." ( Frierson, at p. 187.) Our opinion in Frierson concluded that article I, section 27 constituted a permissible constitutional amendment, not a revision. ( Frierson, at p. 187.) [21] 3 Three years after Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142 , in Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 1990(See Brosnahan, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 260 ; Amador, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 223.) Before examining the applicable authorities in greater depth, we first set forth the nature of petitioners’ revision challenge. | 3 | 1990–2009 |
AMADOR VALLEY JT. UN. HIGH SCH. v. State Bd. of Equal.
green
2 sentences2009In Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142 , the defendant claimed the 1972 initiative measure constituted a revision rather than an amendment of the Constitution, arguing that article I, section 27 “contemplates ‘removal of judicial review’ of the death penalty from a carefully built state constitutional structure, thereby resulting in ‘a significant change in a principle underlying our system of democratic government and can only be accomplished by constitutional revision.’ ” ( 25 Cal.3d at p. 186 .) In responding to this contention, the lead opinion in Frierson acknowledged the qualitative prong of 2009In Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142 , the defendant claimed the 1972 initiative measure constituted a revision rather than an amendment of the Constitution, arguing that article I, section 27 “contemplates ‘removal of judicial review’ of the death penalty from a carefully built state constitutional structure, thereby resulting in ‘a significant change in a principle underlying our system of democratic government and can only be accomplished by constitutional revision.’ ” ( 25 Cal.3d at p. 186 .) In responding to this contention, the lead opinion in Frierson acknowledged the qualitative prong of | 2 | 1991–2009 |
People v. Frierson
green
2 sentences2009In Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142 , the defendant claimed the 1972 initiative measure constituted a revision rather than an amendment of the Constitution, arguing that article I, section 27 “contemplates ‘removal of judicial review’ of the death penalty from a carefully built state constitutional structure, thereby resulting in ‘a significant change in a principle underlying our system of democratic government and can only be accomplished by constitutional revision.’ ” ( 25 Cal.3d at p. 186 .) In responding to this contention, the lead opinion in Frierson acknowledged the qualitative prong of 2009In Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142 , the defendant claimed the 1972 initiative measure constituted a revision rather than an amendment of the Constitution, arguing that article I, section 27 “contemplates ‘removal of judicial review’ of the death penalty from a carefully built state constitutional structure, thereby resulting in ‘a significant change in a principle underlying our system of democratic government and can only be accomplished by constitutional revision.’ ” ( 25 Cal.3d at p. 186 .) In responding to this contention, the lead opinion in Frierson acknowledged the qualitative prong of | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Legislature v. Eu
green
1 sentence2008The purported “as applied” challenge is inconsistent with the test for a constitutional revision that “must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision.” {Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 510 .) Therefore, their label simply applies the wrong test to analyze the question they ask. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Smith
green
2 sentences2003However, if an injury is inflicted it may be considered in connection with other evidence in determining whether an assault was committed and, if so, the nature of the assault." (Italics *372 added.) The Comment on this revision of the standard assault instruction indicated that the language we have italicized was based on People v. Smith (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 1470 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 604 . 2003However, if an injury is inflicted it may be considered in connection with other evidence in determining whether an assault was committed and, if so, the nature of the assault." (Italics *372 added.) The Comment on this revision of the standard assault instruction indicated that the language we have italicized was based on People v. Smith (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 1470 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 604 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Solgaard v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.
green
2 sentences1980Although revision of the rule to reflect modern tort concepts has been convincingly recommended (Note, Negligence Actions by Police Officers and Firefighters: A Need for a Professional Rescuers Rule (1978) 66 Cal.L.Rev. 585, 598-609), we consider ourselves bound by the policy considerations set forth in Walters and decline to undertake a revision of the rule; accordingly, we apply the principles enunciated in Walters to willful or wanton misconduct. 1 Ill Plaintiff argues also that he made a prima facie showing of negligence against defendant and that there is no rule of law which would immuni 1980Although revision of the rule to reflect modern tort concepts has been convincingly recommended (Note, Negligence Actions by Police Officers and Firefighters: A Need for a Professional Rescuers Rule (1978) 66 Cal.L.Rev. 585, 598-609), we consider ourselves bound by the policy considerations set forth in Walters and decline to undertake a revision of the rule; accordingly, we apply the principles enunciated in Walters to willful or wanton misconduct. 1 Ill Plaintiff argues also that he made a prima facie showing of negligence against defendant and that there is no rule of law which would immuni | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hubbard v. Boelt
green
2 sentences1980“Although revision of the rule to reflect modern tort concepts has been convincingly recommended... we consider ourselves bound by the policy considerations set forth in Walters and decline to undertake a revision of the rule; accordingly, we apply the principles enunciated in Walters to willful or wanton misconduct.” (Holden v. Chunestudey, supra, at p. 962 , italics partially added; pet. for hg. den.; approved, Hubbard v. Boelt (1980) 28 Cal.3d 480 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 620 P.2d 156 ].) The complaints concede that real parties were called into the tube to extinguish the fire, prevent damage 1980“Although revision of the rule to reflect modern tort concepts has been convincingly recommended... we consider ourselves bound by the policy considerations set forth in Walters and decline to undertake a revision of the rule; accordingly, we apply the principles enunciated in Walters to willful or wanton misconduct.” (Holden v. Chunestudey, supra, at p. 962 , italics partially added; pet. for hg. den.; approved, Hubbard v. Boelt (1980) 28 Cal.3d 480 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 620 P.2d 156 ].) The complaints concede that real parties were called into the tube to extinguish the fire, prevent damage | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hamling v. United States
green
2 sentences1976Since Miller permits the imposition of a lesser burden on the prosecution in this phase of the proof of obscenity than did Memoirs , and since the jury convicted these petitioners on the basis of an instruction concededly based on the Memoirs test, petitioners derive no benefit from the revision of that test in Miller . ” (418 U.S. at pp. 116-117 [ 41 L.Ed.2d at p. 620 ].) However, plaintiff’s vagueness argument is based primarily on part (b) of the Miller test—the requirement that material proscribed as obscene depict or describe, in a patently offensive manner, sexual conduct “specifically d 1976Since Miller permits the imposition of a lesser burden on the prosecution in this phase of the proof of obscenity than did Memoirs , and since the jury convicted these petitioners on the basis of an instruction concededly based on the Memoirs test, petitioners derive no benefit from the revision of that test in Miller . " (418 U.S. at pp. 116-117 [ 41 L.Ed.2d at p. 620 ].) However, plaintiff's vagueness argument is based primarily on part (b) of the Miller test — the requirement that material proscribed as obscene depict or describe, in a patently offensive manner, sexual conduct "specifically | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.