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 1 courts 2014–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodas v. Spiegelgreen1 sentence2026(See Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517 [appellate court does not “review the validity of the trial court’s reasoning but only the propriety of the ruling itself”].) The court granted defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions after plaintiffs failed to respond to defendant’s discovery requests and to comply with the court’s order compelling their responses. | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Brillgreen2 sentences2026(See Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc., supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 806 [mandatory relief provision of section 473(b) applies to order granting defense motion for dismissal as a terminating sanction only if plaintiff failed to oppose the motion]; Brill, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 726 [mandatory relief under section 473(b) “encompasses dismissals entered as a terminating sanction for discovery abuse”].) Even if the trial court should have construed the September 6, 2023 order of dismissal as having been entered due to its earlier order granting terminating sanctions, substantial evidence nonetheless su 2026(See Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc., supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 806 [mandatory relief provision of section 473(b) applies to order granting defense motion for dismissal as a terminating sanction only if plaintiff failed to oppose the motion]; Brill, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 726 [mandatory relief under section 473(b) “encompasses dismissals entered as a terminating sanction for discovery abuse”].) Even if the trial court should have construed the September 6, 2023 order of dismissal as having been entered due to its earlier order granting terminating sanctions, substantial evidence nonetheless su | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/7green1 sentence2026In response to this court’s inquiry, plaintiffs made clear their appeal was timely as to the April 23, 2024 order denying the section 473(b) motion to set aside/vacate the dismissal of their complaint 6 —an appealable order under section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2).7 (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 927, fn. 6 .) DISCUSSION Plaintiffs challenge the court’s denial of Jose’s motion to set aside or vacate the dismissal of their complaint under the mandatory provision of section 473(b). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc.green2 sentences2026(See Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc., supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 806 [mandatory relief provision of section 473(b) applies to order granting defense motion for dismissal as a terminating sanction only if plaintiff failed to oppose the motion]; Brill, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 726 [mandatory relief under section 473(b) “encompasses dismissals entered as a terminating sanction for discovery abuse”].) Even if the trial court should have construed the September 6, 2023 order of dismissal as having been entered due to its earlier order granting terminating sanctions, substantial evidence nonetheless su 2026(Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 791 , 803.) “Whether section 473, subdivision (b)’s requirements have been satisfied in any given case is a question we review for substantial evidence where the evidence is disputed and de novo where it is undisputed.” (Martin Potts, at p. 437.) Plaintiffs’ attorney attested it was his fault—his miscalendaring of the trial date—that he and his clients did not appear on September 6, 2023, and it was that failure to appear that led to the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint.9 As the trial court noted, Jose’s motion to set aside the September 6 order | 1 | 1 |
People v. Albarrangreen2 sentences2022(People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214, 232 ; see id. at pp. 229-230 [“‘The dispositive issue is … whether the trial court committed an error which rendered the trial “so ‘arbitrary and fundamentally unfair’ that it violated federal due process”’”].) We perceive no fundamental unfairness based on the ruling at issue and thus evaluate Jose’s claim under the Watson standard. 2022(People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214, 232 ; see id. at pp. 229-230 [“‘The dispositive issue is … whether the trial court committed an error which rendered the trial “so ‘arbitrary and fundamentally unfair’ that it violated federal due process”’”].) We perceive no fundamental unfairness based on the ruling at issue and thus evaluate Jose’s claim under the Watson standard. | 1 | 1 |
Orange County Department of Child Support Services v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016With regard to the second point, Tracy argued in her writ petition that the stipulation did not allow Perkovich to hear a motion to enforce ‘“an agreement in which she had no role.” Urging that the jurisdiction of a temporary judge, circumscribed by the stipulation, is limited to matters that are ‘“a continuation of the stipulated cause or question its finality, such as motions to vacate or reconsider” and not to ‘“ancillary” matters ‘“heard on a separate record” and seeking “an independent judgment or reviewable order” (Orange County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Superior Court (2005) 12 2016With regard to the second point, Tracy argued in her writ petition that the stipulation did not allow Perkovich to hear a motion to enforce ‘“an agreement in which she had no role.” Urging that the jurisdiction of a temporary judge, circumscribed by the stipulation, is limited to matters that are ‘“a continuation of the stipulated cause or question its finality, such as motions to vacate or reconsider” and not to ‘“ancillary” matters ‘“heard on a separate record” and seeking “an independent judgment or reviewable order” (Orange County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Superior Court (2005) 12 | 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. Aranda
red
1 sentence2023Portions of the body camera recording and transcript were redacted based on Jose’s objection the interview implicated Jose and, if admitted, would violate his right to cross-examine Orlando under People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 . 5 a door. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bruton v. United States
green
1 sentence2023Portions of the body camera recording and transcript were redacted based on Jose’s objection the interview implicated Jose and, if admitted, would violate his right to cross-examine Orlando under People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 . 5 a door. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Zichwic
green
1 sentence2022The fact that a driveway is within the curtilage of a house is not determinative if its accessibility and visibility from a public highway rule out any reasonable expectation of privacy.’ ” (People v. Zichwic (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 944, 953 .) As a result, the trial court did not err in denying Jose’s motion to suppress evidence based on the placement of the GPS trackers on the RV at the Gilroy residence as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the driveway where that vehicle was parked. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. G.Y.
green
1 sentence2015Code, § 781; In re G.Y. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1196 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Chiu
red
2 sentences2015(People v. Torres, supra, at p. 4.) DISCUSSION The California Supreme Court, in Chiu, held that “punishment for second degree murder is commensurate with a defendant’s culpability for aiding and abetting a target crime that would naturally, probably, and foreseeably result in a murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 166 .) The court further held that, “where the direct perpetrator is guilty of first degree premeditated murder, the legitimate public policy considerations of deterrence and culpability would not be served by allowing 2015(People v. Torres, supra, at p. 4.) DISCUSSION The California Supreme Court, in Chiu, held that “punishment for second degree murder is commensurate with a defendant’s culpability for aiding and abetting a target crime that would naturally, probably, and foreseeably result in a murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 166 .) The court further held that, “where the direct perpetrator is guilty of first degree premeditated murder, the legitimate public policy considerations of deterrence and culpability would not be served by allowing | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Zapien
red
1 sentence2014(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 , 425- 426, overruled on another ground as stated in People v. Ortiz (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1372 .) In such a case, we may reverse “ ‘only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his [or her] act or omission.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 980 .) According to Jose, his trial counsel’s “decision not to produce [Siona] as a witness did not reflect a tactical decision but a series of blunders, and there could have been no reasonable basis for not wanting the jury . . . to hear what [Si | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Pope
red
1 sentence2014(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 , 425- 426, overruled on another ground as stated in People v. Ortiz (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1372 .) In such a case, we may reverse “ ‘only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his [or her] act or omission.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 980 .) According to Jose, his trial counsel’s “decision not to produce [Siona] as a witness did not reflect a tactical decision but a series of blunders, and there could have been no reasonable basis for not wanting the jury . . . to hear what [Si | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 , 425- 426, overruled on another ground as stated in People v. Ortiz (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1372 .) In such a case, we may reverse “ ‘only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for his [or her] act or omission.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 980 .) According to Jose, his trial counsel’s “decision not to produce [Siona] as a witness did not reflect a tactical decision but a series of blunders, and there could have been no reasonable basis for not wanting the jury . . . to hear what [Si | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.