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 1971–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lealgreen2 sentences2021Turning to the third Leal inquiry, “[t]he requisite balancing contemplates a judicial assessment of medical need and efficacy based upon 4 People v. Leal (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 829, 844 (Leal). 5 evidence: the defendant’s medical history, the gravity of his or her ailment, the testimony of experts or otherwise qualified witnesses, conventional credibility assessments, the drawing of inferences, and perhaps even medical opinions at odds with that of the defendant’s authorizing physician.” (Leal, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 844 .) There was a complete paucity of evidence as to defendant’s asser 2021Turning to the third Leal inquiry, “[t]he requisite balancing contemplates a judicial assessment of medical need and efficacy based upon 4 People v. Leal (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 829, 844 (Leal). 5 evidence: the defendant’s medical history, the gravity of his or her ailment, the testimony of experts or otherwise qualified witnesses, conventional credibility assessments, the drawing of inferences, and perhaps even medical opinions at odds with that of the defendant’s authorizing physician.” (Leal, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 844 .) There was a complete paucity of evidence as to defendant’s asser | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lealgreen2 sentences1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute 1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lentgreen2 sentences2014(Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486 [probation condition is valid unless it . . . (3) requires or forbids conduct which is “not reasonably related to future criminality”].) We therefore proceed to the third step of the Leal test. 18 E. 2014(Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486 [probation condition is valid unless it . . . (3) requires or forbids conduct which is “not reasonably related to future criminality”].) We therefore proceed to the third step of the Leal test. 18 E. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moretgreen1 sentence2012(See Moret, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 871 [card deemed prima facie evidence of CUA protection] (dis. opn. of Kline, P. J.).) A card that reveals false information, fraud, or other violations of the CUA may certainly be challenged. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Spanngreen1 sentence1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rubacalbagreen2 sentences1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute 1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sullivangreen2 sentences1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute 1995(E.g., People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 510-512 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 413 P.2d 665 ] (hereafter Leal) [holding that possession of narcotics paraphernalia bearing useless traces or residue of narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction for knowing narcotics possession]; Spann, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 409 [“noncriminal use of a controlled substance in an institution may not be . . . bootstrapped into the crime of possession”]; People v. Sullivan (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 562, 565 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] (hereafter Sullivan) [holding that discovery of defendant’s heroin kit containing minute | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gurrolagreen2 sentences1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca 1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca | 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. Zapien
green
2 sentences2014And finally, we review the trial court’s decision, not its reasoning, and will affirm a judgment or order that reached the correct result, “ ‘regardless of the considerations [that] may have moved the trial court to its conclusion.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976 .) As we have already explained, the condition was valid under the Leal test. 2014And finally, we review the trial court’s decision, not its reasoning, and will affirm a judgment or order that reached the correct result, “ ‘regardless of the considerations [that] may have moved the trial court to its conclusion.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976 .) As we have already explained, the condition was valid under the Leal test. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Katz v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1988The Court of Appeal disagreed, reasoning that it would be impossible to consider Molko and Leal’s theory “without questioning the authenticity and force of the Unification Church’s religious teachings and permitting a jury to do likewise, which is constitutionally forbidden.” The court relied on Katz v. Superior Court, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d 952 , in reaching its conclusion, and the Church adopts this view. 1988The Court of Appeal disagreed, reasoning that it would be impossible to consider Molko and Leal's theory "without questioning the authenticity and force of the Unification Church's religious teachings and permitting a jury to do likewise, which is constitutionally forbidden." The court relied on Katz v. Superior Court, supra, 73 Cal. App.3d 952 , in reaching its conclusion, and the Church adopts this view. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Sanders
green
2 sentences1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca 1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Northern
green
2 sentences1971The statute makes no provision for that kind of in futuro commitment. 2 The notice of appeal is “from the judgment; and any and all orders substantially effecting [sic] his rights.” The appeal from the orders is dismissed; any errors in the orders involved can be raised on the appeal from the judgment. 3 We note that CALJIC (3d) 12.00 contains a more specific statement of the Leal doctrine; but we do not regard the earlier version as being necessarily erroneous. 4 In People v. Northern (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 28 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 15 ], Division Five held that the section did not require proof of an 1971The statute makes no provision for that kind of in futuro commitment. 2 The notice of appeal is “from the judgment; and any and all orders substantially effecting [sic] his rights.” The appeal from the orders is dismissed; any errors in the orders involved can be raised on the appeal from the judgment. 3 We note that CALJIC (3d) 12.00 contains a more specific statement of the Leal doctrine; but we do not regard the earlier version as being necessarily erroneous. 4 In People v. Northern (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 28 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 15 ], Division Five held that the section did not require proof of an | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca 1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Rideout v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca 1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Sweet
green
2 sentences1971The statute makes no provision for that kind of in futuro commitment. 2 The notice of appeal is “from the judgment; and any and all orders substantially effecting [sic] his rights.” The appeal from the orders is dismissed; any errors in the orders involved can be raised on the appeal from the judgment. 3 We note that CALJIC (3d) 12.00 contains a more specific statement of the Leal doctrine; but we do not regard the earlier version as being necessarily erroneous. 4 In People v. Northern (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 28 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 15 ], Division Five held that the section did not require proof of an 1971The statute makes no provision for that kind of in futuro commitment. 2 The notice of appeal is “from the judgment; and any and all orders substantially effecting [sic] his rights.” The appeal from the orders is dismissed; any errors in the orders involved can be raised on the appeal from the judgment. 3 We note that CALJIC (3d) 12.00 contains a more specific statement of the Leal doctrine; but we do not regard the earlier version as being necessarily erroneous. 4 In People v. Northern (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 28 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 15 ], Division Five held that the section did not require proof of an | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Rideout v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca 1971Rather, the opinions were concerned with such unrelated matters as the defendant's knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of marijuana in the car ( Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 581 , 432 P.2d 197 ]), compliance with the Leal rule excluding liability for possession of a de minimis quantity of the drug ( People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App.3d 844 [ 85 Cal. Rptr. 238 ]), and whether a conviction for both possession and transportation constitutes double punishment proscribed by Penal Code section 654 ( People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 123 [ 58 Ca | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.