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 1981–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Singh v. Lipworth CA3green2 sentences2026(See Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 [contention forfeited absent meaningful analysis supported by citation to authority].) 5 Undesignated statutory references are to this code. 13 added that the officer’s report was a summary containing ambiguous phrasing, explaining that “locking brakes could be back brakes, front brakes, both brakes, nobody knows.” The court rejected Suzuki’s argument that the statement was relevant to show Soulliere did not mention brake failure, stating the exception is “for statements made, not for statements not made.” While we appreciate the court’s e 2026(See Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 [contention forfeited absent meaningful analysis supported by citation to authority].) 5 Undesignated statutory references are to this code. 13 added that the officer’s report was a summary containing ambiguous phrasing, explaining that “locking brakes could be back brakes, front brakes, both brakes, nobody knows.” The court rejected Suzuki’s argument that the statement was relevant to show Soulliere did not mention brake failure, stating the exception is “for statements made, not for statements not made.” While we appreciate the court’s e | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cowangreen2 sentences2026(Fairbank et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 8:1363.) If they are met, the writing may be read into evidence. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) As with other preliminary facts, the trial court generally decides if the witness’s affirmation of the statement as true is sufficiently reliable. (§ 405, subd. (a); People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 467 .) But when “[t]he proffered evidence is of a statement . . . of a particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that person made the statement,” the court’s role 6 Vehicle Code section 20013 makes accident 2026Code, § 1237, subd. (a).)” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 465 .) 3. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Robinson
neutral
1 sentence2022No more was required.” (People v. Robinson (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 579, 588 .) We are also unimpressed with the Attorney General’s argument regarding the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2021However, [defendant] submits that is not enough to satisfy the statute and the holding in People v. Simmons [(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 677 ]. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Cummings
green
2 sentences2019(See 24 Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1298 ; Diaz, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 706 ; Lopez, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) II HEARSAY STATEMENTS A. Royal's Contentions Royal asserts the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting certain out of court statements from L.N. under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule. 2019(See Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1293-1294.) Thus, having found no error, it did not engage in any harmless error analysis. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2019(See 24 Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1298 ; Diaz, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 706 ; Lopez, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) II HEARSAY STATEMENTS A. Royal's Contentions Royal asserts the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting certain out of court statements from L.N. under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule. 2019(See 24 Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1298 ; Diaz, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 706 ; Lopez, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) II HEARSAY STATEMENTS A. Royal's Contentions Royal asserts the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting certain out of court statements from L.N. under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Diaz
green
2 sentences2019(See 24 Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1298 ; Diaz, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 706 ; Lopez, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) II HEARSAY STATEMENTS A. Royal's Contentions Royal asserts the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting certain out of court statements from L.N. under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule. 2019(See 24 Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1298 ; Diaz, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 706 ; Lopez, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) II HEARSAY STATEMENTS A. Royal's Contentions Royal asserts the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting certain out of court statements from L.N. under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Carroll v. Beavers
green
2 sentences1981Counsel for the plaintiff cites Carroll v. Beavers (1954) supra, 126 Cal.App.2d 828 [ 273 P.2d 56 ], in support of his appeal. 1981Counsel for the plaintiff cites Carroll v. Beavers (1954) supra, 126 Cal.App.2d 828 [ 273 P.2d 56 ], in support of his appeal. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.