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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2021 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. Robertsongreen2 sentences2009At the threshold, I fail to see why a bald claim by the defendant that he fired his gun "upwards into the air" intending merely to "`scare people away'" ( Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 162), a claim that was flatly contradicted by all the physical evidence in the case, including the dead victim who was found 50 yards away felled by a single shot to the back of his head, should be found controlling on the matter of what theory or theories of murder were rightfully available to the prosecution in trying the case. ( In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 783 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 2009At the threshold, I fail to see why a bald claim by the defendant that he fired his gun “upwards into the air” intending merely to “ ‘scare people away’ ” (Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 162 ), a claim that was flatly contradicted by all the physical evidence in the case, including the dead victim who was found 50 yards away felled by a single shot to the back of his head, should be found controlling on the matter of what theory or theories of murder were rightfully available to the prosecution in trying the case. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Christian S.green2 sentences2009At the threshold, I fail to see why a bald claim by the defendant that he fired his gun "upwards into the air" intending merely to "`scare people away'" ( Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 162), a claim that was flatly contradicted by all the physical evidence in the case, including the dead victim who was found 50 yards away felled by a single shot to the back of his head, should be found controlling on the matter of what theory or theories of murder were rightfully available to the prosecution in trying the case. ( In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 783 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 2009At the threshold, I fail to see why a bald claim by the defendant that he fired his gun "upwards into the air" intending merely to "`scare people away'" ( Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 162), a claim that was flatly contradicted by all the physical evidence in the case, including the dead victim who was found 50 yards away felled by a single shot to the back of his head, should be found controlling on the matter of what theory or theories of murder were rightfully available to the prosecution in trying the case. ( In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 783 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d | 1 | 1 |
Pennel v. Pond Union School Districtgreen1 sentence1998In reviewing whether substantial evidence exists, the cases say: “ ‘Substantial’ evidence means that evidence must be of ‘ponderable legal significance.’ It must be ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.’ [Citations.]” (Pennel v. Pond Union School Dist., supra, 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 837, fn. 2 .) The trial correctly found that no substantial evidence of blight is present here. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Titusgreen2 sentences1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. 1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Walkergreen2 sentences1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. 1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McLeangreen2 sentences1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. 1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crowley Maritime v. Boston Old Colony Ins.
green
1 sentence2021Co. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1069 .) The exception to this bald rule is that a nonsignatory can be bound when a party to the agreement has authority to bind the nonsignatory – such as via partnership or agency. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Cal. Nov. 1, 2012) 2012 WL 5382218 , at *9, fn. 2 [court determined only scientific testing could address false advertising claims concerning a supplement providing joint relief when a number of variables may influence the health and comfort of joints].) In a false advertising case, “[t]he falsity of the advertising claims may be established by testing, scientific literature, or anecdotal evidence.” (King Bio, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 22 p. 1348.) Vigil did not establish falsity because Dr. Gurley did no testing with respect to the Libido-Max product generally or any of its ingredients; the s | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Govea v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021(Id. at p. 31.) Because the defendant’s counsel telephonically reported to the court clerk his desire for a continuance and the plaintiffs’ agreement to it, he 35 argued that he was not responsible for the post-deadline continuance because he was not in court on September 21 (Govea, supra, 26 Cal.App.2d at p. 31 )— a bald challenge to the credibility of the clerk who recorded that the continuance was granted based on his motion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Trujillo v. FIRST AMERICAN REGISTRY, INC.
green
1 sentence2016As explained in Trujillo v. First American Registry, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 628 , the existence of a dispute of fact within the contemplation of the MSJ statute is not created by a bald challenge to the movant’s credibility; unless there is some showing of a basis to question the moving party’s credibility, there is no disputed fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gonzales v. City of Santa Ana
green
1 sentence2000The bald claim of inadequate parking is also not supported.” Also pertinent here is Gonzales v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1335 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Schlosser
green
2 sentences1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. 1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
People v. Bryant
green
2 sentences1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. 1933(People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 309 [ 67 Pac. 770 ]; Gray v. Walker, 157 Cal. 381, 386 [ 108 Pac. 278 ] ; People v. Titus, 85 Cal. App. 413, 418 [ 259 Pac. 465 ]; People v. Schlosser, 99 Cal. App. 593 [ 278 Pac. 898 ]; People v. Bryant, 101 Cal. App. 84 [ 281 Pac. 404 ].) But despite the fact that such burden does not rest upon this court, the entire record has been read to ascertain whether any of the numerous specifications of error would warrant a reversal herein. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.