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 1 courts 1983–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Vfyellow2 sentences2011(See In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 973 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ]; In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1824-1826 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ].) The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error. 2011(See In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 973 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ]; In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1824-1826 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ].) The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marquis D.green2 sentences2011(See In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 973 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ]; In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1824-1826 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ].) The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error. 2011(See In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 973 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ]; In re Marquis D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1824-1826 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ].) The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Corygreen2 sentences1991(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 574 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ]; People v. Cory (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 117 ].) This rule of harmless error is applicable to defendants in propria persona as well as those represented by counsel. 1991(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 574 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ]; People v. Cory (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 117 ].) This rule of harmless error is applicable to defendants in propria persona as well as those represented by counsel. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1991(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 574 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ]; People v. Cory (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 117 ].) This rule of harmless error is applicable to defendants in propria persona as well as those represented by counsel. 1991(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 574 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ]; People v. Cory (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 117 ].) This rule of harmless error is applicable to defendants in propria persona as well as those represented by counsel. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Castrogreen1 sentence1983(People v. Serrato, supra, 9 Cal.3d at pp. 766-767.) We assume, arguendo, the instructional error in the instant case had a substantial effect on the burden of proof and that Serrato controls the rule of harmless error here. 10 In People v. Williams, supra, 133 Cal. at page 169, the court said that “the prosecuting officer, when he commences the trial of a case of this class, where he is at liberty to prove one of several different offenses under the indictment, should at least as early as the commencement of the trial, inform the defense upon proof of what specific offense he intends to rely, | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1983(People v. Serrato, supra, 9 Cal.3d at pp. 766-767.) We assume, arguendo, the instructional error in the instant case had a substantial effect on the burden of proof and that Serrato controls the rule of harmless error here. 10 In People v. Williams, supra, 133 Cal. at page 169, the court said that “the prosecuting officer, when he commences the trial of a case of this class, where he is at liberty to prove one of several different offenses under the indictment, should at least as early as the commencement of the trial, inform the defense upon proof of what specific offense he intends to rely, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. R.S.
green
2 sentences2025For that reason the doctrine of implied findings may be given limited scope where an express finding is required.” (J.S., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1078 , italics omitted.) “The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error. 2024For that reason the doctrine of implied findings may be given limited scope where an express finding is required.” (In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078 .) “The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error. | 5 | 2014–2025 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Crystal C.
green
2 sentences2016(In re A.M. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 593, 598 ; In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078 .) "Before any judgment can be reversed for ordinary error, it must appear that the error complained of 'has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' (Cal. Const., art. 2014(In re A.M. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 593, 598 ; In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078 .) "Before any judgment can be reversed for ordinary error, it must appear that the error complained of 'has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' (Cal. Const., art. | 3 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Pompa-Ortiz
green
1 sentence2006(Id. at p. 527.) But the Pompa-Ortiz court observed that in the context of prohibition, “jurisdiction has a much broader meaning than does jurisdiction in the fundamental sense of legal power to hear and determine a cause” (Pompa-Ortiz, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 529 , italics added.) Under the narrower definition of jurisdiction, per se reversal of a conviction for a defect in a preliminary hearing is not necessary: “The presence of a jurisdictional defect which would entitle a defendant to a writ of prohibition prior to trial does not necessarily deprive a trial court of the legal power to try t | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.