address claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

address claim in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 1 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.

Followed or applied (13)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Milton Penickgreen
ca7 · 1974 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1975–1979
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

22
Penick v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1974 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1975–1979
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

22
Hudson Berlind Corp. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen
scotus · 1974 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1975–1979
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

22
Simpson v. Simpsongreen
scotus · 1974 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1975–1979
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

22
White v. Davisgreen
cal · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994In White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 775 [ 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 , 533 P.2d 222 ], the first decision of this court to address a claim under the state constitutional privacy provision, our court specifically held that the ballot statement of the Privacy Initiative "makes clear that the amendment does not purport to prohibit all incursion into individual privacy but rather that any such intervention must be justified by a compelling interest. " (Italics added.) Subsequent cases, over the past 20 years, have relied upon this interpretation of the privacy provision in referring repeatedly to the c

1994In White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 775 [ 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 , 533 P.2d 222 ], the first decision of this court to address a claim under the state constitutional privacy provision, our court specifically held that the ballot statement of the Privacy Initiative "makes clear that the amendment does not purport to prohibit all incursion into individual privacy but rather that any such intervention must be justified by a compelling interest. " (Italics added.) Subsequent cases, over the past 20 years, have relied upon this interpretation of the privacy provision in referring repeatedly to the c

11
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Younggreen
cal · 1970 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beachgreen
cal · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
Loder v. Municipal Courtgreen
cal · 1976 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
Conservatorship of Valerie N.green
cal · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
People v. Stritzingergreen
cal · 1983 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamsongreen
cal · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
People v. Woodygreen
cal · 1964 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

1994(See, e.g., Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 948, fn. 12 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 90 , 719 P.2d 660 ]; Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 163-164 [ 219 Cal. Rptr. 387 , 707 P.2d 760 ]; People v. Strizinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 431 , 668 P.2d 738 ]; City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 131 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 539 , 610 P.2d 436 , 12 A.L.R.4th 219 ]; Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 864 [ 132 Cal. Rptr. 464 , 553 P.2d 624 ].) In view of the rather clear language of the ballot pamphlet, the appl

11
People v. Castrogreen
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981Such information gave the jury sufficient environmental background re *836 garding this witness to accurately weigh and assess his testimony. [If] Hence, defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to effectively cross-examine this witness against him.” (People v. Mardian, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d at pp. 40-41; see also People v. Castro (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 191, 202-204 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 153 ].) In the present case, defendant established that Dunton had been convicted of robbery, used heroin, had committed theft to support his heroin habit, had a pending burglary case, and was a paid police i

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. William Daddano green
ca7 · 1970
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
United States v. Richard Alston green
ca5 · 1972
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
United States v. Walter Trice McKinley green
ca5 · 1974
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc. green
scotus · 1971
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
United States v. Topco Associates, Inc. green
scotus · 1971
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
United Mine Workers of America v. District 50, United Mine Workers of America green
scotus · 1971
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
Masters v. Harris green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
Alston v. United States green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1979(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert. den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert. den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert. den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) [¶] In the case at hand, defense

1975(United States v. McKinley, 493 F.2d 547, 550-551 .) And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness “in his proper setting.” (United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 52 , cert, den., 409 U.S. 871 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 122 , 93 S.Ct. 200 ]; United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1128 , cert, den., 402 U.S. 905 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 645 , 91 S.Ct. 1366 ]; see also United States v. Penick, 496 F.2d 1105, 1108 , cert, den., 419 U.S. 897 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 177 ].) *41 In the case at hand, defense

21975–1979
McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc. green
cal · 2001
1 sentence

2022(McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415 .) “In determining whether plaintiffs properly stated a claim for relief, our standard of review is clear: ‘ “We treat the and address that claim below.

12022–2022
In Re Anna S. green
calctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2015(In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1499 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554 .) Appellant seeks the assistance of this court to address his claim that his forgery conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

12015–2015
People v. Perez green
cal · 1979
1 sentence

2015(In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1499 ; People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554 .) Appellant seeks the assistance of this court to address his claim that his forgery conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

12015–2015
People v. Rodriguez red
cal · 1998
1 sentence

2013Appellant contends this credit must be increased by 93 days, because ―[i]t appears from the Clerk‘s Transcript that [he] was ordered into custody on April 15, 2010 [on the initial petition] and was not released until a subsequent preadjudication hearing held on July 16, 2010.‖ 3 The court properly imposed the four-year gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) instead of the alleged five-year gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)), because assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury is not a serious felony (see People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 261 ). 12 The People c

12013–2013
Ronald D. Smart, Doing Business as Paschall Electric v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 702 green
ca7 · 2003
1 sentence

2004(See Smart v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 702 (7th Cir. 2002) 315 F.3d 721, 724-725 .) Where section 301 and the FAA do not conflict, the same types of jurisdictional analyses can be used on these arbitration issues. 2 It would be premature for this court to address the privilege issues raised by Sysco about the permissible scope of such a work-related investigation, and its claim the investigation was entirely privileged.

12004–2004
People v. Mardian green
calctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1979Aside from evidence of Ramey's prior convictions, drug use, and work as a police informer, defendant was able to elicit information concerning Ramey's frequent practice of "short changing." Certainly this evidence bore directly on Ramey's honesty and integrity and placed the witness "in his proper setting." At this point the language *204 of the court in People v. Mardian, supra , becomes pertinent. "... denial of defense inquiry into a witness' address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness `in his proper setting.' [Citations.]" ( 47 Cal. App.3d 16, at p. 4

1979Aside from evidence of Ramey’s prior convictions, drug use, and work as a police informer, defendant was able to elicit information concerning Ramey’s frequent practice of “short changing.” Certainly this evidence bore directly on Ramey’s honesty and integrity and placed the witness “in his proper setting.” At this point the lan guage of the court in People v. Mardian, supra, becomes pertinent. "... denial of defense inquiry into a witness’ address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness ‘in his proper setting.’ [Citations.]” ( 47 Cal.App.3d 16, at p. 40 .) A

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

PA 12 (1992–2025) CA 8 (1975–2022) IL 7 (1998–2024) OH 7 (1981–2026) NY 5 (2010–2017) TX 3 (1982–2015) MN 3 (2004–2014) VI 2 (2016–2017) FL 2 (1998–2018) WA 2 (1997–2018) OR 2 (2002–2011) MD 2 (2012–2016) AZ 2 (2015–2020) ID 2 (2002–2025) ND 2 (1995–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check