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 1976–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfandgreen2 sentences1980In Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 193 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ], we observed that the resolution of this issue of prospective application turns primarily on two factors: ‘the extent of the public reliance upon the former rule,... [and] the ability of litigants to foresee the coming change in the law.’ In the present case both factors militate against a purely prospective overruling of French v. French . 1980In Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 193 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ], we observed that the resolution of this issue of prospective application turns primarily on two factors: ‘the extent of the public reliance upon the former rule,... [and] the ability of litigants to foresee the coming change in the law.’ In the present case both factors militate against a purely prospective overruling of French v. French . | 4 | 4 |
People v. Verdugored1 sentence2021The Provocative Act Theory is Inapplicable in This Case Both defendants agree that the trial court could utilize our prior opinions as part of their records of conviction when determining whether they established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a)(3); see Verdugo, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at pp. 327– 330; People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448 , 459-460; People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 180 .) Our opinion in Swain I establishes that the provocative act theory was unsupported by any evidence as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Van Maired1 sentence2021(Swain I, supra, 19 at pp. 6-7; see People v. Mai (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 117, 127 (Mai) [the doctrine cannot apply unless two or more co-felons engage in provocative acts that “provoke a lethal response by a victim, police officer, [or] bystander”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Nguyen (2000) 24 Cal.4th 756 .) We found the error instructing on the provocative act theory harmless, however, because the evidence “eliminated all but appellants as the source of the fatal shot,” which constituted substantial evidence to support the second degree murder convictions based the remaining the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mozingogreen2 sentences1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an 1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an | 1 | 1 |
People v. Haskettgreen2 sentences1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an 1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an | 1 | 1 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an 1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Wilson
green
2 sentences1980It is unlike ly that a layman would rely upon the French rule, or even know of that doctrine; attorneys familiar with the decision in French v. French would also realize from our opinion in Marriage of Wilson, supra, 10 Cal.3d 851 that the French rule was ripe for reconsideration. 1980It is unlike ly that a layman would rely upon the French rule, or even know of that doctrine; attorneys familiar with the decision in French v. French would also realize from our opinion in Marriage of Wilson, supra, 10 Cal.3d 851 that the French rule was ripe for reconsideration. | 5 | 1976–1980 |
People v. Woodell
green
1 sentence2021The Provocative Act Theory is Inapplicable in This Case Both defendants agree that the trial court could utilize our prior opinions as part of their records of conviction when determining whether they established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a)(3); see Verdugo, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at pp. 327– 330; People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448 , 459-460; People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 180 .) Our opinion in Swain I establishes that the provocative act theory was unsupported by any evidence as a matter of law. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Nguyen
green
1 sentence2021(Swain I, supra, 19 at pp. 6-7; see People v. Mai (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 117, 127 (Mai) [the doctrine cannot apply unless two or more co-felons engage in provocative acts that “provoke a lethal response by a victim, police officer, [or] bystander”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Nguyen (2000) 24 Cal.4th 756 .) We found the error instructing on the provocative act theory harmless, however, because the evidence “eliminated all but appellants as the source of the fatal shot,” which constituted substantial evidence to support the second degree murder convictions based the remaining the | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Trujillo
green
1 sentence2021The Provocative Act Theory is Inapplicable in This Case Both defendants agree that the trial court could utilize our prior opinions as part of their records of conviction when determining whether they established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a)(3); see Verdugo, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at pp. 327– 330; People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448 , 459-460; People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 180 .) Our opinion in Swain I establishes that the provocative act theory was unsupported by any evidence as a matter of law. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harris v. City of Santa Monica
green
1 sentence2014Harris also held that in some cases a FEHA plaintiff might obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, and attorney fees, notwithstanding a successful “same-decision” defense, in order to prevent and deter discriminatory workplace conduct. ( Harris, supra, 31 As noted by our Supreme Court, in a case involving a probationary teacher: “Just as we decline to permit school authorities to mask an unconstitutional dismissal behind a statement of valid causes, so we cannot allow a teacher genuinely dismissed for valid causes to be reinstated because school authorities were also displeased with his exerc | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Gauze
green
2 sentences1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant’s hostility to presentation of “mental defenses” did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) 7 In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense counsel an 1985(See, e.g., People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 852-853 [ 180 Cal. Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ]; People v. Gauze, supra, 15 Cal.3d 709, 718 ; Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581 ]; cf. People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926, 934 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ] [defendant's hostility to presentation of "mental defenses" did not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate such defenses so as to enable him to make an informed recommendation to defendant].) [7] (1b) In light of the above conclusion, it is clear that in this case both defense c | 1 | 1985–1985 |