third assignment error in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2024 2 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Redmondgreen cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970 2 sentences 1970Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent People, as required on appellate review (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 457 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Sweeney (1960) 55 Cal.2d 27, 33 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ], the facts are as follows: Elijah Robinson, the custodian of John Marshall High School in Los 90 Angeles, was the last person to leave the school building on Sunday, September 15, 1968. 3 To his knowledge no one had permission to enter the building after he had locked it at 5 p.m. that day. 1970Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent People, as required on appellate review (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 457 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Sweeney (1960) 55 Cal.2d 27, 33 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ], the facts are as follows: Elijah Robinson, the custodian of John Marshall High School in Los 90 Angeles, was the last person to leave the school building on Sunday, September 15, 1968. 3 To his knowledge no one had permission to enter the building after he had locked it at 5 p.m. that day.	1	1
People v. Sweeneygreen cal · 1960 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970 2 sentences 1970Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent People, as required on appellate review (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 457 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Sweeney (1960) 55 Cal.2d 27, 33 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ], the facts are as follows: Elijah Robinson, the custodian of John Marshall High School in Los 90 Angeles, was the last person to leave the school building on Sunday, September 15, 1968. 3 To his knowledge no one had permission to enter the building after he had locked it at 5 p.m. that day. 1970Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent People, as required on appellate review (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 457 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Sweeney (1960) 55 Cal.2d 27, 33 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 357 P.2d 1049 ], the facts are as follows: Elijah Robinson, the custodian of John Marshall High School in Los 90 Angeles, was the last person to leave the school building on Sunday, September 15, 1968. 3 To his knowledge no one had permission to enter the building after he had locked it at 5 p.m. that day.	1	1
People v. Bensongreen cal · 1856 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1939–1939 1 sentence 1939You are not to be moved by passion, sympathy or prejudice to find a verdict of guilty on any count of the information and unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that the defendant is guilty as *163 charged on one or more of the several counts of the information, you should find the defendant not guilty.” In that connection, and with particular reference to the certain inability of any accused man to produce evidence sufficient either to create in the minds of the jurors a reasonable doubt respecting his guilt, or to disprove a charge of the nature of that here inv	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Sivongxxay green cal · 2017 2 sentences 2024We have seen the identical issue more than once in moot OMHD recommitment appeals since our Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151 (Sivongxxay), a jury waiver case in which the court “emphasiz[ed] the value of a robust oral colloquy in evincing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a jury trial.” (Id. at p. 169.) In an effort to rectify what appears to be a persistent problem of deficient jury waivers in some OMHD recommitment cases, we believe a published opinion addressing the jury waiver taken in this case is in order. 2023We have seen the identical issue more than once in moot OMHD recommitment appeals since our Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151 (Sivongxxay), a jury waiver case in which the court “emphasiz[ed] the value of a robust oral colloquy in evincing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a jury trial.” (Id. at p. 169.) In an effort to rectify what appears to be a persistent problem of deficient jury waivers in some OMHD recommitment cases, we believe a published opinion addressing the jury waiver taken in this case is in order.	2	2023–2024
De Arellanes v. Arellanes green cal · 1907 2 sentences 1941(De Avellanes v. Avellanes, 151 Cal. 443 [ 90 Pac. 1059 ].) The same may be said with respect to the third assignment of error, which relates to a similar question asked of a bank official who acted as escrow agent in connection with the sale of this farm. 1941(De Avellanes v. Avellanes, 151 Cal. 443 [ 90 Pac. 1059 ].) The same may be said with respect to the third assignment of error, which relates to a similar question asked of a bank official who acted as escrow agent in connection with the sale of this farm.	1	1941–1941
Harpending v. Meyer green cal · 1880 1 sentence 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o	1	1928–1928
McNally v. Connolly neutral cal · 1886 2 sentences 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o	1	1928–1928
Daggett v. Gray green cal · 1895 2 sentences 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o	1	1928–1928
Mier v. Southern California Ice Co. green calctapp · 1922 2 sentences 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o 1928(Mier v. Southern California Ice Co., 56 Cal. App. 512 [ 206 Pac. 83 ]; Daggett v. Gray, 110 Cal. 169 [ 42 Pac. 568 ]; McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 [ 11 Pac. 320 ]; Harpending v. Meyer, 55 Cal. 555 .) As to the third assignment of error, the plaintiff in this action asks, if the court is at all in doubt as to the law involved, to be permitted, under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 583), to make proof that the chattel mortgage executed by Gonsalves to the plaintiff, though bearing date of February 2, 1922, was in truth and in fact executed on the seventeenth day o	1	1928–1928
People v. Lamb green calctapp · 1924 1 sentence 1924As to the third assignment of error, to wit, the sentence of the defendant to a term in the county jail, the question presented is identical with that considered in the case of People v. Lamb, ante, p. 263 [ 227 Pac. 969 ], heretofore decided by this court, opinion filed May 13, 1924.	1	1924–1924
Petaluma Paving Co. v. Singley green cal · 1902 1 sentence 1905Co. v. Singley, 136 Cal. 618 , [ 69 Pac. 426 ].) As to the third assignment of error.	1	1905–1905

Where else courts name it

OH 1104 (1942–2026) OR 54 (1946–2026) OK 52 (1897–1988) LA 43 (1928–2022) PA 37 (1894–1975) TX 37 (1868–2015) VA 32 (1876–2022) TN 22 (1923–1978) NE 19 (1895–2002) WV 18 (1902–2025) WA 16 (1906–2014) AL 15 (1904–1974) AZ 15 (1900–1976) NC 13 (1935–2005) MS 12 (1953–2000) FL 10 (1888–1959) IN 9 (1878–1927) MO 8 (1910–1991) CA 8 (1905–2024) GA 7 (1922–1967) ID 6 (1885–1975) KS 5 (1882–1972) MA 4 (1928–1979) MT 4 (1976–2019) CT 4 (1962–1980) PR 3 (1922–1956) MI 3 (1899–1933) DC 3 (1943–1995) SC 3 (1907–1930) CO 2 (1971–1972) NJ 2 (1907–1907) MN 2 (1893–1945) WI 2 (1878–1926) MD 2 (1962–1963)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check