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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Louis S.green2 sentences2008(In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 ]; In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 630-631 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 110 ] (Louis S.).) We conclude the BIA error was cured when the Agency sent the revised JV-135 to the BIA and filed proper verification with the court. 2008(In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 ]; In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 630-631 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 110 ] (Louis S.).) We conclude the BIA error was cured when the Agency sent the revised JV-135 to the BIA and filed proper verification with the court. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Francisco W.green2 sentences2008(In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 ]; In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 630-631 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 110 ] (Louis S.).) We conclude the BIA error was cured when the Agency sent the revised JV-135 to the BIA and filed proper verification with the court. 2008(In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 ]; In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 630-631 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 110 ] (Louis S.).) We conclude the BIA error was cured when the Agency sent the revised JV-135 to the BIA and filed proper verification with the court. | 2 | 2 |
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Groegergreen2 sentences1997Co. v. Groeger (1925) 266 U.S. 521, 528 [ 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 ].) A railroad is “bound absolutely to furnish ... [a locomotive] in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger.” (Id. at *1526 pp. 528-529 [ 45 S.Ct. at p. 172 ].) Proof of a BIA violation demonstrates “negligence as a matter of law.” (Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163, 189 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , 1303, 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) I Contentions of Instructional Error Amtrak contends the jury was confused over the distinction between negligence (the basis for FELA liability) and strict liability (the 1997Co. v. Groeger (1925) 266 U.S. 521, 528 [ 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 ].) A railroad is “bound absolutely to furnish ... [a locomotive] in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger.” (Id. at *1526 pp. 528-529 [ 45 S.Ct. at p. 172 ].) Proof of a BIA violation demonstrates “negligence as a matter of law.” (Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163, 189 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , 1303, 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) I Contentions of Instructional Error Amtrak contends the jury was confused over the distinction between negligence (the basis for FELA liability) and strict liability (the | 1 | 1 |
Urie v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1997Co. v. Groeger (1925) 266 U.S. 521, 528 [ 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 ].) A railroad is “bound absolutely to furnish ... [a locomotive] in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger.” (Id. at *1526 pp. 528-529 [ 45 S.Ct. at p. 172 ].) Proof of a BIA violation demonstrates “negligence as a matter of law.” (Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163, 189 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , 1303, 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) I Contentions of Instructional Error Amtrak contends the jury was confused over the distinction between negligence (the basis for FELA liability) and strict liability (the 1997Co. v. Groeger (1925) 266 U.S. 521, 528 [ 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 ].) A railroad is “bound absolutely to furnish ... [a locomotive] in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger.” (Id. at *1526 pp. 528-529 [ 45 S.Ct. at p. 172 ].) Proof of a BIA violation demonstrates “negligence as a matter of law.” (Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163, 189 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , 1303, 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) I Contentions of Instructional Error Amtrak contends the jury was confused over the distinction between negligence (the basis for FELA liability) and strict liability (the | 1 | 1 |
Lester D. King v. Southern Pacific Transportation Companygreen2 sentences1997Co. (10th Cir. 1988) 855 F.2d 1485, 1488, fn. 1 .) Thus, neither contributory negligence nor assumption of the risk is a defense to a BIA violation which has contributed to the cause of an injury. 1997Co. (10th Cir. 1988) 855 F.2d 1485, 1488, fn. 1 .) Thus, neither contributory negligence nor assumption of the risk is a defense to a BIA violation which has contributed to the cause of an injury. | 1 | 1 |
People's Home Savings Bank v. Sadlergreen2 sentences1994Bank v. Sadler (1905) 1 Cal.App. 189,193 [ 81 P. 1029 ].) Since judgment was entered in the BIA action December 24, 1991, and the Housing and Community Development letter approving the draft housing element revisions was not sent until August 19, 1992, it appears that BIA’s objection is well taken and we have not considered that document in connection with deciding this appeal. 1994Bank v. Sadler (1905) 1 Cal.App. 189,193 [ 81 P. 1029 ].) Since judgment was entered in the BIA action December 24, 1991, and the Housing and Community Development letter approving the draft housing element revisions was not sent until August 19, 1992, it appears that BIA’s objection is well taken and we have not considered that document in connection with deciding this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Yost v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1989Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.), which contains “a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California” (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 685 P.2d 1152 ]), the state land use planning and zoning law “leaves wide discretion to a local government not only to determine the contents of its land use plans, but to choose how to implement these plans.” (Id. at p. 573.) The trial court granted BIA’s motion for summary adjudication of issues on the question whether Ch. 32A is a zoning ordinance within the meaning *297 of Government C 1989Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.), which contains “a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California” (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 685 P.2d 1152 ]), the state land use planning and zoning law “leaves wide discretion to a local government not only to determine the contents of its land use plans, but to choose how to implement these plans.” (Id. at p. 573.) The trial court granted BIA’s motion for summary adjudication of issues on the question whether Ch. 32A is a zoning ordinance within the meaning *297 of Government C | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barbosa v. Barr
green
1 sentence2021“Before Diaz-Lizarraga, the BIA’s rule was that ‘a theft offense categorically involves moral turpitude if—and only if—it is committed with the intent to permanently deprive an owner of property.’ [Citations.] But in Diaz-Lizarraga, the BIA changed the threshold for theft offenses to qualify as CIMTs.” (Maie v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021) 7 F.4th 841 , 847.) When a person “pleaded no contest to the relevant charge before the BIA changed its interpretation, the new standard does not apply retroactively to his case.” (Barbosa v. Barr (2019) 926 F.3d 1053, 1058 .) Therefore, the new standard will not | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Prieto-Romero v. Clark
green
1 sentence2009This process may not equal the bureaucratic nightmare faced by Josef K. in Franz Kafka’s The Trial, but unfortunately it is often unpredictable and slow. “[A]n alien whose removal order is administratively final is not necessarily immediately deported.” (Prieto-Romero v. Clark (9th Cir. 2008) 534 F.3d 1053, 1058 .) Thus, even after an ALJ and the BIA rule that an alien is deportable, he or she may remain in the United States for years after a federal court grants a stay pending review. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dan Marius Andreiu v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
green
1 sentence2009(Ibid.; Andreiu v. Ashcroft (9th Cir. 2001) 253 F.3d 477, 483 ; Song v. I.N.S. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Compagnie Internationale De Produits Alimentaires S. A. v. Miller
green
2 sentences1997Co. v. Groeger (1925) 266 U.S. 521, 528 [ 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 ].) A railroad is “bound absolutely to furnish ... [a locomotive] in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger.” (Id. at *1526 pp. 528-529 [ 45 S.Ct. at p. 172 ].) Proof of a BIA violation demonstrates “negligence as a matter of law.” (Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163, 189 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , 1303, 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) I Contentions of Instructional Error Amtrak contends the jury was confused over the distinction between negligence (the basis for FELA liability) and strict liability (the 1997Co. v. Groeger (1925) 266 U.S. 521, 528 [ 45 S.Ct. 169, 172 , 69 L.Ed. 419 ].) A railroad is “bound absolutely to furnish ... [a locomotive] in proper condition for use without unnecessary danger.” (Id. at *1526 pp. 528-529 [ 45 S.Ct. at p. 172 ].) Proof of a BIA violation demonstrates “negligence as a matter of law.” (Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163, 189 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , 1303, 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) I Contentions of Instructional Error Amtrak contends the jury was confused over the distinction between negligence (the basis for FELA liability) and strict liability (the | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City Council
green
1 sentence1989The court proceeded to deny BIA’s motion for summary judgment finding “the question of consistency is a material triable issue of fact per the Turlock case. [ 149 Cal.App.3d 584 .].... | 1 | 1989–1989 |