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 1932–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Morey v. Wellsgreen2 sentences1934(Estate of Morey, 147 Cal. 495, 508 [ 82 Pac. 57 ].) Numerous decisions are in the books, to like effect. 1934(Estate of Morey, 147 Cal. 495, 508 [ 82 Pac. 57 ].) Numerous decisions are in the books, to like effect. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Watsongreen1 sentence2025(See People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032 , 1070–1071; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) He argues that this standard is met because this was a close case turning on witness credibility, so the implication that defense counsel did not believe him was particularly damaging. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Edward H.green1 sentence2007The implication is that the rule was not binding to the extent it exceeded the requirements of the federal law. ( In re Edward H., at pp. 4-5, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 .) The 2006 enactment of section 224.2, however, has incorporated the rule 1439 notice requirements into a statute and expressly provides that heightened state law standards shall prevail over more lenient ICWA requirements. (§§ 224, subd. (d); 224.2, subd.(a)(3).) In light of this superseding legislation, we decline to follow the holding of In re Edward H. | 1 | 1 |
Horn v. Swoapgreen2 sentences1983(Horn v. Swoap (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 375, 382 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 113 ]; 58 Cal.Jur.3d, Statutes, § 111, pp. 496-497.) The Trial Court Properly Construed Section 219 as Permitting the Leasing of Pueblo Lands for a Period in Excess of 15 Years Upon Council Approval Plus Voter Ratification Governed by the character of a city charter as being solely an instrument of express limitation regarding power over municipal affairs and unaided by the doctrine of implication, the city charter’s express restriction on the sale of Pueblo Lands cannot result in an implied restriction upon the City’s power to lease 1983(Horn v. Swoap (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 375, 382 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 113 ]; 58 Cal.Jur.3d, Statutes, § 111, pp. 496-497.) The Trial Court Properly Construed Section 219 as Permitting the Leasing of Pueblo Lands for a Period in Excess of 15 Years Upon Council Approval Plus Voter Ratification Governed by the character of a city charter as being solely an instrument of express limitation regarding power over municipal affairs and unaided by the doctrine of implication, the city charter’s express restriction on the sale of Pueblo Lands cannot result in an implied restriction upon the City’s power to lease | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brucegreen2 sentences1966For this reason the Legislature has afforded a person who is committed under such sections the right to demand a trial de novo by jury or judge on the issue as to whether or not he should be committed.” (People v. Bruce, 64 Cal.2d 55, 59 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 409 P.2d 943 ].) In. narcotic addiction commitment proceedings, the right to a jury trial has been held analogous to the right of appeal. 1966For this reason the Legislature has afforded a person who is committed under such sections the right to demand a trial de novo by jury or judge on the issue as to whether or not he should be committed.” (People v. Bruce, 64 Cal.2d 55, 59 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 409 P.2d 943 ].) In. narcotic addiction commitment proceedings, the right to a jury trial has been held analogous to the right of appeal. | 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. Wallace
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032 , 1070–1071; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) He argues that this standard is met because this was a close case turning on witness credibility, so the implication that defense counsel did not believe him was particularly damaging. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017In Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Nelsen), the court affirmed the trial court’s order enforcing an agreement for individual arbitration in an employment class action, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that individual arbitration violated public policy. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Royal Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Control
green
1 sentence1989The administrative appeal in this case was an informal administrative action for which administrative mandamus is not a proper remedy. 1 (Cf., Royal Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. State *1002 Board of Control, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 793 .) We find no basis for a writ of administrative mandamus. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
In Re Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1966Code, 6508); such trial resulted in a unanimous verdict that petitioner was addicted to the use of narcotics, and petitioner was again committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections." (In re Rodriguez, supra, 60 Cal.2d 822, 824 .) No particular form of notice is prescribed for a jury trial. *304 An implication of waiver of the statutory notice of the first hearing seems inevitable from the fact of going to trial thereafter before a jury with such reasonable notice thereof as is usual. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.