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 1898–1972 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16; Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435 . fn. 11.) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. 1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16: Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435, fn. 11 .) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. [13] Nor is disproportionality confined to long prison sentences: in State v. Ward (1970) 57 N.J. 75 [ 270 A.2d 1 ], a punishment of two to three years' imprisonment for possession of marijuana was held excessive when inflicted on youthful first offenders, and in State v. Driver (1878) 78 N.C. 423 , a sentence of five years in county jail for wife-beating was ruled unconstitutionally disp | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santoragreen2 sentences1954Section 2047 is a codification of the common law, and a majority of the jurisdictions applying that rule have held that production of notes for inspection may be compelled only where the witness uses them while on the stand and not where he refreshes his memory with them before being examined.” *135 Again in People v. Santora, 51 Cal.App.2d 707, 712 [ 125 P.2d 606 ], it was said: “Finally it is argued that the court erred in refusing to permit appellant to examine a report made by a police officer relating to a conversation he had had with the complaining witness. 1954Section 2047 is a codification of the common law, and a majority of the jurisdictions applying that rule have held that production of notes for inspection may be compelled only where the witness uses them while on the stand and not where he refreshes his memory with them before being examined.” *135 Again in People v. Santora, 51 Cal.App.2d 707, 712 [ 125 P.2d 606 ], it was said: “Finally it is argued that the court erred in refusing to permit appellant to examine a report made by a police officer relating to a conversation he had had with the complaining witness. | 1 | 1 |
Goldman v. United Statesred2 sentences1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak 1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak | 1 | 1 |
People v. Camposgreen1 sentence1945The appellant claims that under the holding in People v. Campos, 10 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [ 52 P.2d 251 ], it was not necessary to first confront Gertrude Jordan with her claimed inconsistent statements “with the circumstances of times, places and persons present, ’ ’ but an examination of that case shows it is not in point. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16: Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435, fn. 11 .) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. [13] Nor is disproportionality confined to long prison sentences: in State v. Ward (1970) 57 N.J. 75 [ 270 A.2d 1 ], a punishment of two to three years' imprisonment for possession of marijuana was held excessive when inflicted on youthful first offenders, and in State v. Driver (1878) 78 N.C. 423 , a sentence of five years in county jail for wife-beating was ruled unconstitutionally disp 1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16: Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435, fn. 11 .) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. [13] Nor is disproportionality confined to long prison sentences: in State v. Ward (1970) 57 N.J. 75 [ 270 A.2d 1 ], a punishment of two to three years' imprisonment for possession of marijuana was held excessive when inflicted on youthful first offenders, and in State v. Driver (1878) 78 N.C. 423 , a sentence of five years in county jail for wife-beating was ruled unconstitutionally disp | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. . Driver
green
2 sentences1972Nor is disproportionality confined to long prison sentences: in State v. Ward (1970) 57 N.J. 75 [ 270 A.2d 1 ], a punishment of two to three years’ imprisonment for possession of marijuana was held excessive when inflicted on youthful first offenders, and in State v. Driver (1878) 78 N.C. 423 , a sentence of five years in county jail for wife-beating was ruled unconstitutionally disproportionate. 1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16: Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435, fn. 11 .) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. [13] Nor is disproportionality confined to long prison sentences: in State v. Ward (1970) 57 N.J. 75 [ 270 A.2d 1 ], a punishment of two to three years' imprisonment for possession of marijuana was held excessive when inflicted on youthful first offenders, and in State v. Driver (1878) 78 N.C. 423 , a sentence of five years in county jail for wife-beating was ruled unconstitutionally disp | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Anderson
red
2 sentences1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16; Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435 . fn. 11.) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. 1972(See People v. Anderson (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 628, 636 , fns. 15 and 16: Green v. State (Alaska 1964) 390 P.2d 433, 435, fn. 11 .) But the jurisdictions applying the rule are not limited to these few states. [13] Nor is disproportionality confined to long prison sentences: in State v. Ward (1970) 57 N.J. 75 [ 270 A.2d 1 ], a punishment of two to three years' imprisonment for possession of marijuana was held excessive when inflicted on youthful first offenders, and in State v. Driver (1878) 78 N.C. 423 , a sentence of five years in county jail for wife-beating was ruled unconstitutionally disp | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Lennon v. United States
green
2 sentences1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P. 892, 893-896 ] ; 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], § 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ] ; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], §762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ] ; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809 , 815.) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents befo 1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Leonard v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak 1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak | 1 | 1953–1953 |
The Alpha
neutral
2 sentences1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P. 892, 893-896 ] ; 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], § 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ] ; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], §762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ] ; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809 , 815.) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents befo 1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Magers
green
2 sentences1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak 1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Deslovers
green
2 sentences1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak 1953(See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 132 [ 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 ]; Lennon v. United States, 20 F.2d 490, 493-494 ; State v. Magers, 36 Ore. 38 [ 58 P 892, 893-896 ]; 3 Wharton's Criminal Evidence [11th ed., 1935], 1279, p. 2147; 58 Am.Jur. 335-336; 14 Am.Jur., 893; cf. Leonard v. Taylor, 315 Mass. 580 [ 53 N.E.2d 705, 707 , 151 A.L.R. 1002 ]; but cf. 3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed., 1940], 762, p. 111; State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89 [ 100 A. 64, 69-70 ]; The Alpha, 44 F.Supp. 809, 815 .) An exception has been made in cases where a government witness refers to documents before tak | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Hild v. Justice's Court of Stockton Township
neutral
1 sentence1945The appellant claims that under the holding in People v. Campos, 10 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [ 52 P.2d 251 ], it was not necessary to first confront Gertrude Jordan with her claimed inconsistent statements “with the circumstances of times, places and persons present, ’ ’ but an examination of that case shows it is not in point. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
State v. Downen
green
2 sentences1943One of the Arizona cases is State v. Downen, 17 Ariz. 365 [ 152 P. 857 ], wherein the court said: "The 'validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine, or statute,' as used in the Constitution, has reference to the power to impose the tax, impost, assessment, toll, or fine, or the power of the Legislature to enact the statute involved, and has no reference to the construction of a concededly valid law or statute by which the tax, impost, assessment, toll or fine is imposed," citing Baltimore & Potomac R. 1943One of the Arizona cases is State v. Downen, 17 Ariz. 365 [ 152 P. 857 ], wherein the court said: "The 'validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine, or statute,' as used in the Constitution, has reference to the power to impose the tax, impost, assessment, toll, or fine, or the power of the Legislature to enact the statute involved, and has no reference to the construction of a concededly valid law or statute by which the tax, impost, assessment, toll or fine is imposed," citing Baltimore & Potomac R. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Dolbeer v. Livingston
green
2 sentences1934Assn., 123 Cal. App. 291 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 424 ].) The rule applies not only in jurisdictions which recognize the rule that parol authority is sufficient to authorize the filling in of blanks in a sealed instrument, but also in the jurisdictions in which the rule is adopted that such authority must be under seal. (1 Ruling Case Law, secs. 58, 59, pp. 1022-1024; Dolbeer v. Livingston, 100 Cal. 617 [ 35 Pac. 328 ]; Civ. 1934Assn., 123 Cal. App. 291 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 424 ].) The rule applies not only in jurisdictions which recognize the rule that parol authority is sufficient to authorize the filling in of blanks in a sealed instrument, but also in the jurisdictions in which the rule is adopted that such authority must be under seal. (1 Ruling Case Law, secs. 58, 59, pp. 1022-1024; Dolbeer v. Livingston, 100 Cal. 617 [ 35 Pac. 328 ]; Civ. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Rancho San Carlos, Inc. v. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n
green
2 sentences1934Assn., 123 Cal. App. 291 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 424 ].) The rule applies not only in jurisdictions which recognize the rule that parol authority is sufficient to authorize the filling in of blanks in a sealed instrument, but also in the jurisdictions in which the rule is adopted that such authority must be under seal. (1 Ruling Case Law, secs. 58, 59, pp. 1022-1024; Dolbeer v. Livingston, 100 Cal. 617 [ 35 Pac. 328 ]; Civ. 1934Assn., 123 Cal. App. 291 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 424 ].) The rule applies not only in jurisdictions which recognize the rule that parol authority is sufficient to authorize the filling in of blanks in a sealed instrument, but also in the jurisdictions in which the rule is adopted that such authority must be under seal. (1 Ruling Case Law, secs. 58, 59, pp. 1022-1024; Dolbeer v. Livingston, 100 Cal. 617 [ 35 Pac. 328 ]; Civ. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Western Grain & Sugar Prod. Co. v. Pillsbury
green
2 sentences1921Dec. 300 ] ; Western Grain etc. Co. v. Pillsbury, 173 Cal. 135, 138 , [ 159 Pac. 423 ].) In some of the other jurisdictions the rule is that, while a presumption of death arises from the unexplained absence of a person unheard of for seven years, the presumption extends only to the fact of death at the end of the period, and does not include the date of death, leaving the precise time of death, whether at the end or at any other particular time within the period, to be determined as a question of fact, the burden of showing the time of death being upon the party who claims that it occurred on 1921Dec. 300 ] ; Western Grain etc. Co. v. Pillsbury, 173 Cal. 135, 138 , [ 159 Pac. 423 ].) In some of the other jurisdictions the rule is that, while a presumption of death arises from the unexplained absence of a person unheard of for seven years, the presumption extends only to the fact of death at the end of the period, and does not include the date of death, leaving the precise time of death, whether at the end or at any other particular time within the period, to be determined as a question of fact, the burden of showing the time of death being upon the party who claims that it occurred on | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Baker v. Brown
green
1 sentence1898(Baker v. Brown, 146 Mass. 369 ; Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Pope's Executors v. Elliott & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1898(Baker v. Brown, 146 Mass. 369 ; Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.