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 1961–2025 3 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. Quirozgreen1 sentence2025(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887 (Sheena K.); see People v. Quiroz (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1127 .) II. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Sheena K.green1 sentence2025(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887 (Sheena K.); see People v. Quiroz (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1127 .) II. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Denardgreen1 sentence2021(See People v. Denard (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1020 [exercising discretion to reach claim of error deliberate on the evidence.” The trial court then stated that it believed that there was no doubt that the prosecutor would have challenged Juror No. 11 if she had previously disclosed information about her experience with her son. 28 under Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 despite failure to object in the trial court].) However, even if we assume that Simpson’s claim was not forfeited and the trial court erred when it discharged Juror No. 11, Simpson cannot demonstrate the required p | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Maigreen2 sentences2021(See Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1009 [reversal is required for ineffective assistance of counsel only if record affirmatively demonstrates counsel had no rational tactical purpose, counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel’s omissions].) Moreover, the allegedly improper evidence cited by Simpson—which included his acknowledgment that having an affair with sister-in-law was a “more serious level of wrong” and the prosecutor’s claim that having an affair 70 demonstrated that he had a pattern of irresponsible behav 2021(Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) As a result, Simpson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on this ground fails. 5. | 1 | 1 |
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2010Furthermore, the “general principle” of Evidence Code section 500 is “that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Because establishing the commercial speech exemption is essential to Simpson’s defense to the special motion to strike, Evidence Code section 500 places the burden of proof on Simpson. 2010Furthermore, the “general principle” of Evidence Code section 500 is “that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Because establishing the commercial speech exemption is essential to Simpson’s defense to the special motion to strike, Evidence Code section 500 places the burden of proof on Simpson. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Paulgreen1 sentence2001(People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 194 [jury is presumed to have followed instructions]; People v. Paul, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 32, 40 [the testimony concerning the actual results of the lie detector test, although stricken, was favorable to the defendant, that he had passed it].) The cases *604 cited by Simpson involved far more extensive or egregious emphasis on the results of the test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ewoldtgreen2 sentences2001Code, § 1101, subd. (b); People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 393 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 , 867 P.2d 757 ].) The trial court denied Simpson’s motion in limine to exclude this evidence. 2001Code, § 1101, subd. (b); People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 393 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 , 867 P.2d 757 ].) The trial court denied Simpson’s motion in limine to exclude this evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2001(People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 194 [jury is presumed to have followed instructions]; People v. Paul, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 32, 40 [the testimony concerning the actual results of the lie detector test, although stricken, was favorable to the defendant, that he had passed it].) The cases *604 cited by Simpson involved far more extensive or egregious emphasis on the results of the test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Doziergreen2 sentences1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) A different picture emerges regarding the significance of Simpson’s claim for presentence custodial credits (§ 2900.5) as augmented by good-time/work-time credit in accordance with People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ]. 1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) A different picture emerges regarding the significance of Simpson’s claim for presentence custodial credits (§ 2900.5) as augmented by good-time/work-time credit in accordance with People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ]. | 1 | 1 |
Burum v. State Compensation Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences1961Fund (1947), 30 Cal.2d 575, 586 [4] [ 184 P.2d 505 ].) The provisions of the subject special statute continued in effect until June 9, 1948, and thus bar Simpson’s claim for overtime worked previous to that date and subsequent to June 7, 1943, the effective date of section 73. 1961Fund (1947), 30 Cal.2d 575, 586 [4] [ 184 P.2d 505 ].) The provisions of the subject special statute continued in effect until June 9, 1948, and thus bar Simpson’s claim for overtime worked previous to that date and subsequent to June 7, 1943, the effective date of section 73. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2021(Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 .) In support of Simpson’s motion for a new trial, Dr. Stein submitted a declaration that summarized the contents of her intended testimony. 2021(Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 .) 15 In the declaration that trial counsel prepared in support of Simpson’s motion for a new trial, trial counsel stated: “I recall objecting to fresh complaint evidence on statutory and constitutional grounds. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) Simpson’s claim that the trial court’s discharge of Juror No. 11 is structural error is largely premised on cases like Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th 758 . 2021(People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) Simpson’s claim that the trial court’s discharge of Juror No. 11 is structural error is largely premised on cases like Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th 758 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Reyes
green
1 sentence2021(Id. at p. 964.) In the present case, Clark’s alcoholism was not a mitigating factor in light of her history of drinking and driving, her prior convictions for this crime, and her behavior in committing the current offense. ( Reyes, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at pp. 961–963.) Since a Simpson objection to the court’s selection of the upper term would have been futile, the failure to make one did not deprive Clark of competent representation. 5. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Griffin v. California
green
1 sentence2021(See People v. Denard (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1020 [exercising discretion to reach claim of error deliberate on the evidence.” The trial court then stated that it believed that there was no doubt that the prosecutor would have challenged Juror No. 11 if she had previously disclosed information about her experience with her son. 28 under Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 despite failure to object in the trial court].) However, even if we assume that Simpson’s claim was not forfeited and the trial court erred when it discharged Juror No. 11, Simpson cannot demonstrate the required p | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Hayes
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Simpson’s motion for a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct without an evidentiary hearing. ( Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 1256-1257; Dykes, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 810-811.) B. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Stoll
green
2 sentences2021Dr. Stein indicated that she understood that Simpson’s trial counsel had wanted her to discuss three areas: (1) that there was no evidence that Simpson had a mental disorder that predisposed him to the commission of sexual offenses, either against children or adults; (2) that victim1 and victim2’s conversations “outside the forensic interview process” with family and friends provided opportunities for “contamination”; and (3) that CSAAS is “commonly understood in forensic psychology to be ‘junk science’ and . . . is not scientifically supported through any peer reviewed studies.” First, we do 2021Dr. Stein indicated that she understood that Simpson’s trial counsel had wanted her to discuss three areas: (1) that there was no evidence that Simpson had a mental disorder that predisposed him to the commission of sexual offenses, either against children or adults; (2) that victim1 and victim2’s conversations “outside the forensic interview process” with family and friends provided opportunities for “contamination”; and (3) that CSAAS is “commonly understood in forensic psychology to be ‘junk science’ and . . . is not scientifically supported through any peer reviewed studies.” First, we do | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Dykes
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Simpson’s motion for a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct without an evidentiary hearing. ( Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 1256-1257; Dykes, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 810-811.) B. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Anzalone
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) Simpson’s claim that the trial court’s discharge of Juror No. 11 is structural error is largely premised on cases like Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th 758 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
The People v. Fernandez
green
1 sentence2021Dr. Stein indicated that she understood that Simpson’s trial counsel had wanted her to discuss three areas: (1) that there was no evidence that Simpson had a mental disorder that predisposed him to the commission of sexual offenses, either against children or adults; (2) that victim1 and victim2’s conversations “outside the forensic interview process” with family and friends provided opportunities for “contamination”; and (3) that CSAAS is “commonly understood in forensic psychology to be ‘junk science’ and . . . is not scientifically supported through any peer reviewed studies.” First, we do | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Phillips
green
2 sentences1990The Bass court’s construction of the statute to require only a general intent to commit a violent assault violates the rule that ‘ “[w]hen statutory language is . . . clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it.” ’ [Citation.]” The Fifth Appellate District approved the Simpson analysis in People v. Phillips (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1120 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]. 1990The Bass court’s construction of the statute to require only a general intent to commit a violent assault violates the rule that ‘ “[w]hen statutory language is . . . clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it.” ’ [Citation.]” The Fifth Appellate District approved the Simpson analysis in People v. Phillips (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1120 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Sage
green
2 sentences1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) A different picture emerges regarding the significance of Simpson’s claim for presentence custodial credits (§ 2900.5) as augmented by good-time/work-time credit in accordance with People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ]. 1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) A different picture emerges regarding the significance of Simpson’s claim for presentence custodial credits (§ 2900.5) as augmented by good-time/work-time credit in accordance with People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ]. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences1981If error were made its effect is miniscule and it is not reasonably probable a different sentence would have resulted in its absence ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]), and does not justify remand for resentencing. ( People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal. App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 53 ].) (2) A different picture emerges regarding the significance of Simpson's claim for presentence custodial credits (§ 2900.5) as augmented by good-time/work-time credit in accordance with People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [ 165 Cal. Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ]. 1981If error were made its effect is miniscule and it is not reasonably probable a different sentence would have resulted in its absence ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]), and does not justify remand for resentencing. ( People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal. App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal. Rptr. 53 ].) (2) A different picture emerges regarding the significance of Simpson's claim for presentence custodial credits (§ 2900.5) as augmented by good-time/work-time credit in accordance with People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [ 165 Cal. Rptr. 280 , 611 P.2d 874 ]. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Martin v. Henderson
green
1 sentence1961Petitioner, however, relies upon section 18005.5 of the Government Code, effective October 1, 1949, which states that “Any time off to which an employee is entitled by reason of overtime worked prior to June 9, 1948, may be compensated by a lump sum payment in the manner provided in Section 18005 [formerly section 150.5 of the Civil Service Act] at any time prior to the separation of the employee from service or upon such separation ...” (Italics added.) Martin v. Henderson (1953), supra, 40 Cal.2d 583 , dealt, as already noted herein, with former section 150.5 of the Civil Service Act, effect | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.