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.
65 California opinions name it 4 courts 2015–2026 33 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Department of Justicegreen2 sentences2026(Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 ; accord, Cannon, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 518.) “To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity.” (Johnson, at p. 881.) The justification the People offer supports the current disparity between SVPA and OMHD commitments with regard to the use of structured risk assessment tools like the Static-99R, which is sufficient to defeat 19 Cagle’s challenge here. 2026“To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must “‘negative every conceivable basis’” that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its “‘wisdom, fairness, or logic.”’ [Citations.]” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 .) Here, it is true that complainants cannot appeal CJP decisions, but a judge can when the CJP issues a decision adverse to the judge. | 6 | 50 |
People v. Turnagegreen2 sentences2024It is immaterial for rational basis review ‘whether or not’ any such speculation has ‘a foundation in the record.’ ” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62 , 74–75.) “To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its ‘ “wisdom, fairness, or logic.” ’ ” (Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 881 .) We review an equal protection claim de novo. 2024It is immaterial for rational basis review “whether or not” any such speculation has “a foundation in the record.” ’ ([People v.] Turnage[ (2012) 21 Underwood makes no real effort to argue for application of strict scrutiny. 36 55 Cal.4th 62 ,] 74–75.) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. | 5 | 10 |
People v. Contrerasgreen2 sentences2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w 2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w | 2 | 3 |
Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.C.green2 sentences2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w 2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bellgreen2 sentences2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w 2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w | 2 | 2 |
Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doegreen2 sentences2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w 2019It is immaterial for rational basis review 'whether or not' any such speculation has 'a foundation in the record.' " ( Id. at pp. 74-75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must " 'negative every conceivable basis' " that might support the disputed statutory disparity. ( Heller v. Doe (1993) 509 U.S. 312 , 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 ; see Turnage, at p. 75, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 281 P.3d 464 .) If a plausible *196 basis exists for the disparity, "[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the w | 1 | 5 |
People v. Chatmangreen2 sentences2021It is immaterial for rational basis review “whether or not” any such speculation has “a foundation in the record.” ’ [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negat[e] every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, ‘[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the wisdom, fairness, or logic of the law.’ [Citation.]” ( Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 195–196.) “Moreover, equal protection does not require a perfect fit between a statut 2021It is immaterial for rational basis review “whether or not” any such speculation has “a foundation in the record.”’ [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘“negative every conceivable basis”’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its 8. ‘“wisdom, fairness, or logic.”’” (Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 881 ; accord, Chatman, at pp. 288–289.) “‘[W]hen conducting rational basis review, we must accept any gross generalizations and rough accommodations that the L | 1 | 3 |
People v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2016It is immaterial for rational basis review “whether or not” any such speculation has “a foundation in the record.”’ [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘“negative every conceivable basis”’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its ‘“wisdom, fairness, or logic.”’ [Citations.]” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 .) Relying on People v. Wilkinson, supra, 33 Cal.4th 821 , the People argue that, by reclassifying as a misdemeanor the cr 2016(Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 878 .) “This standard of rationality does not depend upon whether lawmakers ever actually articulated the purpose they sought to achieve. . . . [Citation.] While the realities of the subject matter cannot be completely ignored [citation], a court may engage in rational speculation as to the justifications for the legislative choice. . . . [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must negative every conceivable basis that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists fo | 1 | 3 |
People v. McKeegreen1 sentence2025(People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1207 (McKee).) However, rational basis review based on an equal protection argument essentially duplicates an argument based on due process. | 1 | 1 |
Gates v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2022(See Ortwein v. Schwab (1973) 410 U.S. 656, 660 [equal protection challenge to filing fee for review of public benefits determination subject to rational basis review]; United States v. Kras (1973) 409 U.S. 434, 446 [equal protection challenge to bankruptcy court filing fee by indigent petitioner subject to rational basis review]; Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 514 [noting high court “has repeatedly applied the rational basis test to statutes affecting the right to participate in civil litigation.”].) “To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative | 1 | 1 |
Ortwein v. Schwabgreen1 sentence2022(See Ortwein v. Schwab (1973) 410 U.S. 656, 660 [equal protection challenge to filing fee for review of public benefits determination subject to rational basis review]; United States v. Kras (1973) 409 U.S. 434, 446 [equal protection challenge to bankruptcy court filing fee by indigent petitioner subject to rational basis review]; Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 514 [noting high court “has repeatedly applied the rational basis test to statutes affecting the right to participate in civil litigation.”].) “To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Krasgreen1 sentence2022(See Ortwein v. Schwab (1973) 410 U.S. 656, 660 [equal protection challenge to filing fee for review of public benefits determination subject to rational basis review]; United States v. Kras (1973) 409 U.S. 434, 446 [equal protection challenge to bankruptcy court filing fee by indigent petitioner subject to rational basis review]; Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 514 [noting high court “has repeatedly applied the rational basis test to statutes affecting the right to participate in civil litigation.”].) “To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moralesgreen1 sentence2020(Williams, at pp. 490, 493.) Our colleagues disagreed with Edwards and held “the threat of recidivism by violent sexual offenders—as demonstrated by the Legislature’s enactment of several comprehensive statutory schemes to curb such recidivism among such offenders—provides a rational basis for the Legislature’s decision to exclude one-strikers from the reach of section 3051.” (Williams, at p. 493.) 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 469.) “To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wardgreen2 sentences2016Rational Basis Review A “rational basis test applies to equal protection challenges based on sentencing disparities. [Citations.]” 8 (People v. Ward (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 252, 258 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 913 ].) Under the.rational basis test, “ ‘equal protection of the law is denied only where there is no “rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” ’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 [ 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 , 341 P.3d 1075 ] (Johnson).) The government’s underlying rationale need not “ ‘be empirically substa 2016Rational Basis Review A “rational basis test applies to equal protection challenges based on sentencing disparities. [Citations.]” 8 (People v. Ward (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 252, 258 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 913 ].) Under the.rational basis test, “ ‘equal protection of the law is denied only where there is no “rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” ’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 [ 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 , 341 P.3d 1075 ] (Johnson).) The government’s underlying rationale need not “ ‘be empirically substa | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015(Heller, at p. 320; see Turnage , at p. 75.) If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its “ ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic.’ ” (Heller, at p. 319; see Turnage , at p. 74.) As noted, it is settled that section 290’s lifetime registration requirement legitimately intends to “promote the ‘ “state interest in controlling crime and preventing recidivism in sex offenders.” ’ ” (Wright, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 527 .) Moreover, there is no doubt that mandatory registration for sex offenders who prey on underage victims is rationally related to that important and vital pu 2015(Heller, at p. 320; see Turnage, at p. 75.) If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its “ ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic.’ ” (Heller, at p. 319; Turnage at p. 74 .) As noted, it is settled that section 290’s lifetime registration requirement legitimately intends to “promote the ‘ “state interest in controlling crime and preventing recidivism in sex offenders.” ’ ” (Wright, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 527 .) Moreover, there is no doubt that mandatory registration for sex offenders who prey on underage victims is rationally related to that important and vital public p | 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. Edwards
green
2 sentences2024(Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 195 .) Under this highly deferential standard, “equal protection of the law is denied only where there is no ‘rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.’ ” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74 (Turnage).) To raise a successful rational basis challenge, a party must negate “ ‘ “every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity.” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 .) “It is both the prerogative and the duty of the Legislature to define degree 2022(People v. Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 195 .) Under this highly deferential standard, 82 “equal protection of the law is denied only where there is no ‘rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.’” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74 (Turnage).) To raise a successful rational basis challenge, a party must negate “‘“every conceivable basis”’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity.” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 .) “It is both the prerogative and the duty of the Legislature to defi | 8 | 2020–2024 |
Chan v. Curran
green
2 sentences2023It is immaterial for rational basis review ‘whether or not’ any such speculation has ‘a foundation in the record.’”’” (Chan, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 612 .) “‘While parties challenging legislation under the equal protection clause may introduce evidence supporting their claim that the legislation is irrational, they cannot prevail if it is evident that “‘the question is at least debatable.’”’ [Citations.] Thus, ‘[t]o mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must “‘negative every conceivable basis’” that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible 2023It is immaterial for rational basis review ‘whether or not’ any such speculation has ‘a foundation in the record.’”’” (Chan, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 612 .) “‘While parties challenging legislation under the equal protection clause may introduce evidence supporting their claim that the legislation is irrational, they cannot prevail if it is evident that “‘the question is at least debatable.’”’ [Citations.] Thus, ‘[t]o mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must “‘negative every conceivable basis’” that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible | 3 | 2015–2023 |
People v. Floyd
green
2 sentences2017It is immaterial for rational basis review "whether or not" any such speculation has "a foundation in the record." ' [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ' "negative every conceivable basis" ' that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its ' "wisdom, fairness, or logic." ' " ( Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871 , 881, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 , 341 P.3d 1075 .) *791 In People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 885 , 72 P.3d 820 ( Floyd 2017It is immaterial for rational basis review "whether or not" any such speculation has "a foundation in the record." ' [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ' "negative every conceivable basis" ' that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its ' "wisdom, fairness, or logic." ' " ( Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871 , 881, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 , 341 P.3d 1075 .) *791 In People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 , 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 885 , 72 P.3d 820 ( Floyd | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Warden v. State Bar of California
green
1 sentence2025(Warden, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; accord, Hardin, at p. 851.) In adopting the provision regarding the Rental Board’s composition, the voters of Pasadena had a rational basis to treat Tenants without a Material Interest in Rental Property differently from those who do not fit both specifications. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2024(California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 208 .) C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Palagin v. Paniagua Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022The purpose of the bond requirement is to “ ‘discourage employers from filing frivolous appeals and from hiding assets in order to avoid enforcement of the judgment.’ ” (Palagin, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 ; see also Cardinal Care, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1018–1019 [bond requirement “discourages unmeritorious appeals and minimizes the time for an employer to divest itself of assets in order to deprive the employee of the possibility of 19 enforcing the award”].) Ernst offers no reason that the bond requirement in section 98.2, subdivision (b), is not an effective means to accomplish | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Anthony M.
green
1 sentence2021(In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017 .) Making the minor the primary person responsible for paying victim restitution has the rational basis of advancing those first two purposes. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Noyan
green
1 sentence2021(Heller, at p. 320; see Turnage, at p. 75.) If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second- guess its “ ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic.’ ” (Heller, at p. 319; see Turnage, at p. 74; Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 .) While “it is irrelevant whether the perceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the Legislature, equal protection ‘does require that a purpose may conceivably or “may reasonably have been the purpose and policy” of the relevant governmental decisionmaker’ [citation] and that ‘the relationship of the classificati | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
1 sentence2019It is immaterial for rational basis review “whether or not” any such speculation has “a foundation in the record.” ’ [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ‘ “negative every conceivable basis” ’ that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second-guess its ‘ “wisdom, fairness, or logic.” ’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 881.) In Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228 , Justice Traynor described the equal protection test by stating: “A discrimination, however, th | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Romo
green
1 sentence2016(Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 878 .) “This standard of rationality does not depend upon whether lawmakers ever actually articulated the purpose they sought to achieve. . . . [Citation.] While the realities of the subject matter cannot be completely ignored [citation], a court may engage in rational speculation as to the justifications for the legislative choice. . . . [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must negative every conceivable basis that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists fo | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fein v. Permanente Medical Group
green
2 sentences2015(See Fein, supra, 38 Cal.3d 137 .) The court reasoned that “the Legislature retains broad control over the measure, as well as the timing, of damages that a defendant is obligated to pay and a plaintiff is entitled to receive, and that the Legislature may expand or limit recoverable damages so long as its action is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” (Id. at p. 158 [emphases in original].) In determining whether the requisite rational relationship existed, the court conducted a “serious and genuine judicial inquiry into the correspondence between the classification 8 and the le 2015(See Fein, supra, 38 Cal.3d 137 .) The court reasoned that “the Legislature retains broad control over the measure, as well as the timing, of damages that a defendant is obligated to pay and a plaintiff is entitled to receive, and that the Legislature may expand or limit recoverable damages so long as its action is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” (Id. at p. 158 [emphases in original].) In determining whether the requisite rational relationship existed, the court conducted a “serious and genuine judicial inquiry into the correspondence between the classification 8 and the le | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Stinnett v. Tam
green
1 sentence2015(Stinnett, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1427 .) “Thus, ‘[t]o mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must “‘negative every conceivable basis’” that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second- guess its “‘wisdom, fairness, or logic.’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Chan, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 613 .) The Supreme Court upheld section 3333.2’s damages cap against an equal protection challenge in 1985. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Hofsheier
red
2 sentences2015It is immaterial for rational basis review "whether or not" any such speculation has "a foundation in the record." ' [Citation.] To mount a successful rational basis challenge, a party must ' "[negate] every conceivable basis" ' that might support the disputed statutory disparity. [Citations.] If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, courts may not second- guess its ' "wisdom, fairness, or logic." ' [Citation.]" (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 (Johnson).) Crowe's equal protection argument rests entirely on People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Hofsheier 2015The California Supreme Court in Hofsheier decided that imposing mandatory sex offender registration under section 290 on a 22-year-old defendant convicted of nonforcible oral copulation of a 16-year-old girl in violation of section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) violated the defendant's constitutional right to equal protection under the law because a person convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of section 261.5 was not subject to mandatory registration. ( Hofsheier, supra, at pp. 1192-1193 .) However, in 19 Johnson, the California Supreme Court overruled Hofsheier and di | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.