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 1966–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vasquez v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C 2017(Vasquez, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 .) Vasquez held that in determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and the inclusion of specific contractual provisions. | 3 | 6 |
Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.green2 sentences2021The test is whether a collective bargaining agreement makes compliance with the statute a contractual commitment subject to the arbitration clause. ( Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at pp. 80-81 [119 S.Ct. at pp. 396-397]; see Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (4th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 875 , 879-880.)” (Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 430 , 434-435 (Vasquez).) “ ‘Broad, general language is not sufficient to meet the level of clarity required to effect a waiver in a [collective bargaining agreement]. 2021The test is whether a collective bargaining agreement makes compliance with the statute a contractual commitment subject to the arbitration clause. ( Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at pp. 80-81 [119 S.Ct. at pp. 396-397]; see Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (4th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 875 , 879-880.)” (Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 430 , 434-435 (Vasquez).) “ ‘Broad, general language is not sufficient to meet the level of clarity required to effect a waiver in a [collective bargaining agreement]. | 2 | 2 |
Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Ctr. CA2/7green2 sentences2024The test is whether a collective bargaining agreement makes compliance with the statute a contractual commitment subject to the arbitration clause.” (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 ; Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 [quoting Vasquez]; accord, Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 545 .) To make a clear and unmistakable waiver, “[c]ompliance 5. with a particular statute must be an express contractual commitment in the collective bargaining agreement.” (Vasquez, at p. 435.) Blattner concedes that the CBA’s arbitration provisio 2024The test is whether a collective bargaining agreement makes compliance with the statute a contractual commitment subject to the arbitration clause.” (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 ; Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 [quoting Vasquez]; accord, Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 545 .) To make a clear and unmistakable waiver, “[c]ompliance 5. with a particular statute must be an express contractual commitment in the collective bargaining agreement.” (Vasquez, at p. 435.) Blattner concedes that the CBA’s arbitration provisio | 1 | 1 |
Connally v. General Construction Co.green2 sentences1966He relies upon Connally v. General Const. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 [ 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 ], wherein it is stated “ [t]hat the terms of a penal statute creating a new oifense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. ...” Defendant’s attack is leveled on that part of the statute which states that “Every person who designates any nongovernmental organization by any name . . . which would reasonably be understood to imply that the organization is composed of peace officers ... is guilty of a 1966He relies upon Connally v. General Const. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 [ 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 ], wherein it is stated “ [t]hat the terms of a penal statute creating a new oifense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. ...” Defendant’s attack is leveled on that part of the statute which states that “Every person who designates any nongovernmental organization by any name . . . which would reasonably be understood to imply that the organization is composed of peace officers ... is guilty of a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.
green
2 sentences2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C 2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 3 | 2021–2023 |
Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2024The test is whether a collective bargaining agreement makes compliance with the statute a contractual commitment subject to the arbitration clause.” (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 ; Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 [quoting Vasquez]; accord, Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 545 .) To make a clear and unmistakable waiver, “[c]ompliance 5. with a particular statute must be an express contractual commitment in the collective bargaining agreement.” (Vasquez, at p. 435.) Blattner concedes that the CBA’s arbitration provisio 2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equip. Co.
green
1 sentence2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 1 | 2023–2023 |
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett
green
1 sentence2023A “waiver of the right to prosecute a statutory violation in a judicial forum is only effective if it is explicit, ‘ “clear and unmistakable.” ’ ” (Cortez, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 12 , quoting Penn Plaza, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 254 ; Wright, supra, 525 U.S. at p. 80 .) “[I]n determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause, explicit incorporation of statutory requirements, and 13 the inclusion of specific contractual provisions.” (Vasserman, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 , citing Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 C | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Flores v. Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012(See Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 430, 434-436 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ]; Flores v. Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 807 .) In determining whether there has been a sufficiently explicit waiver of a judicial forum, courts look to the generality of the arbitration clause; the explicit incorporation of statutory requirements; and inclusion of specific statutes, identified by name or citation. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Ibarra
red
2 sentences1984Finally, in In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 666 P.2d 980 ], the court held that a sufficiently explicit waiver form may be used “in those felony cases which do not involve special circumstances which might indicate that a plea is otherwise involuntary, ...” (Id., at p. 285.) The change of plea forms used in these two prior misdemeanor cases on their face directly show that defendant was aware of, and gave up, each of his Boykin-Tahl rights. 1984Finally, in In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 666 P.2d 980 ], the court held that a sufficiently explicit waiver form may be used “in those felony cases which do not involve special circumstances which might indicate that a plea is otherwise involuntary, ...” (Id., at p. 285.) The change of plea forms used in these two prior misdemeanor cases on their face directly show that defendant was aware of, and gave up, each of his Boykin-Tahl rights. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.