8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Laflin & Laflingreen2 sentences1981(Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 671 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 800 ]; § 1148.) There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe Ruline Committed an Unfair Labor Practice. 1981(Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 671 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 800 ]; § 1148.) There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe Ruline Committed an Unfair Labor Practice. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Podestogreen2 sentences1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off 1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off | 1 | 1 |
Mestas v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 | 1 | 1 |
Agar v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floresgreen1 sentence1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off | 1 | 1 |
Badillo v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off 1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manisgreen2 sentences1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Henzegreen2 sentences1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 1978We note only two opinions, both authored by Justice Fleming, that have been particularly helpful in developing the rules of law governing this topic: People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 986, 988-990 [ 61 Cal. Rptr. 545 ], and People v. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. App.2d 653, 658-666 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 423 ]. [2] In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. ( People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7 Cal.3d 186, 198 [ 101 Cal. Rptr. 837 , 49 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1983The cases, he stated, establish "a two-fold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable'." (P. 361 [ 19 L.Ed.2d at p. 588 ], conc. opn. of Harlan, J.) Because Lanza epitomized the "protected areas" type of analysis repudiated by Katz , commentators have questioned whether the earlier decision retains vitality. 1979Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion points to a two-fold requirement: That (a) the suspect has ‘exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,’ and (b) that society can view this expectation as a reasonable one. 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. at 516 . | 2 | 1979–1983 |
People v. Lisa G.
green
1 sentence2014The search was not valid as an administrative or regulatory search conducted pursuant to a school policy. 2.2 Reasonable Suspicion Determining the reasonableness of a student search involves “a two-fold inquiry: (1) whether the search was justified at its inception, and (2) whether the scope of the search, as actually conducted, was reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the initial search.” (Lisa G., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 805 ; T.L.O., supra, 496 U.S at p. 341.) A search is justified at its inception if “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will disclo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Conway
green
1 sentence2014The search was not valid as an administrative or regulatory search conducted pursuant to a school policy. 2.2 Reasonable Suspicion Determining the reasonableness of a student search involves “a two-fold inquiry: (1) whether the search was justified at its inception, and (2) whether the scope of the search, as actually conducted, was reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the initial search.” (Lisa G., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 805 ; T.L.O., supra, 496 U.S at p. 341.) A search is justified at its inception if “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will disclo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. William G.
green
1 sentence2014The search was not valid as an administrative or regulatory search conducted pursuant to a school policy. 2.2 Reasonable Suspicion Determining the reasonableness of a student search involves “a two-fold inquiry: (1) whether the search was justified at its inception, and (2) whether the scope of the search, as actually conducted, was reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the initial search.” (Lisa G., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 805 ; T.L.O., supra, 496 U.S at p. 341.) A search is justified at its inception if “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will disclo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Aronson v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2010In such cases, the court held that in order to satisfy the second prong of a two-fold test, a plaintiff is required to allege facts with particularity “which, taken as true, support a reasonable doubt that the challenged transaction was the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.” 9 ( 473 A.2d at p. 815 .) Thus, Aronson did not address the standards that a court must consider in the demand refusal context. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Solien v. Merchants Home Delivery Service
green
1 sentence1981Moreover, “[t]he .. . [Agricultural Labor Relations Board] shall follow applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.” (§ 1148.) With the language of section 1148 in mind we apply a two-fold test before granting temporary injunctive relief pursuant to NLRA section 10(j): first, is there reasonable cause to believe the unfair labor practices alleged in the underlying dispute actually occurred; and second, is the relief requested “reasonably necessary to preserve the status quo or to prevent frustration of the basic remedial purposes of the Act.” In the words of the stat | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Fare v. Tony C.
green
2 sentences1980This two-fold requirement of a subjective belief and an objective basis for such a subjective state of mind in determining probable cause to make a felony arrest was recently reiterated in In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893 , footnote 2 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 ], in which the high court observed: “In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. [Citations.]” (Italics in original.) 1 Although the In re Tony C. case 1980This two-fold requirement of a subjective belief and an objective basis for such a subjective state of mind in determining probable cause to make a felony arrest was recently reiterated in In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893 , footnote 2 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 ], in which the high court observed: “In a trio of cases decided in 1972 this two-fold requirement of an objective verification of the reasonableness of a subjective state of mind was recognized and enforced in the context of probable cause to arrest. [Citations.]” (Italics in original.) 1 Although the In re Tony C. case | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Robles
green
2 sentences1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off 1978(See, e.g., People v. Podesto (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d 708, 718 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 409 ].) People v. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 739 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 907 ], which held to the contrary on inadequate grounds, is disapproved. [3] By analogy to the rule in the case of warrantless arrests and searches (see Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]), if the prosecution contends that a stop or detention was for a purpose other than to investigate the defendant as a suspect in criminal activity, it has the burden of proof on the issue. [4] Officer Joy himself was not a truant off | 1 | 1978–1978 |
City of Los Angeles v. Sabatasso
green
2 sentences1972When these two conditions are met, such equipment ‘shall be deemed a part of the realty for the purposes of condemnation, regardless of the method of installation.’ ” The language of the Diamond Properties case has been cited with approval in City of Los Angeles v. Sabatasso, 3 Cal.App.3d 973 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 898 ], and Concrete Service Co. v. State of California ex rel. 1972When these two conditions are met, such equipment ‘shall be deemed a part of the realty for the purposes of condemnation, regardless of the method of installation.’ ” The language of the Diamond Properties case has been cited with approval in City of Los Angeles v. Sabatasso, 3 Cal.App.3d 973 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 898 ], and Concrete Service Co. v. State of California ex rel. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.