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 1957–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Golden Gate Bridge & Highway District v. Feltgreen2 sentences2002Under the general heading of standing, Sheldon P. also argues that this case falls under the doctrine that “an action not founded upon an actual controversy between the parties to it, and brought for the purpose of securing a determination of a point of law, is collusive and will not be entertained; and the same is true of a suit the sole object of which is to settle rights of third persons who are not parties.” (Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316 [ 5 P.2d 585 ].) There clearly is an actual controversy here, between the County, which is charged with obtaining suppor 2002Under the general heading of standing, Sheldon P. also argues that this case falls under the doctrine that “an action not founded upon an actual controversy between the parties to it, and brought for the purpose of securing a determination of a point of law, is collusive and will not be entertained; and the same is true of a suit the sole object of which is to settle rights of third persons who are not parties.” (Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316 [ 5 P.2d 585 ].) There clearly is an actual controversy here, between the County, which is charged with obtaining suppor | 1 | 1 |
People v. Powellgreen2 sentences1967(People v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, at pp. 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) But this case falls under the exception to the reversible per se rule stated in People v. Jacobson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 319 , and in People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], Her third and fifth statements added nothing to the essentials of the crime of voluntary manslaughter not contained in her admissible statements. 1967(People v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, at pp. 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) But this case falls under the exception to the reversible per se rule stated in People v. Jacobson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 319 , and in People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], Her third and fifth statements added nothing to the essentials of the crime of voluntary manslaughter not contained in her admissible statements. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hooker v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2023Relevant here, plaintiffs argue this case falls under the exception established in Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 (Hooker) because the DOT retained control over jobsite safety. 2023Relevant here, plaintiffs argue this case falls under the exception established in Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 (Hooker) because the DOT retained control over jobsite safety. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Lee
green
1 sentence2015This case falls under the rule that "[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal." (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) CALCRIM No. 522 accurately 15 states the law, and Garcia does not argue otherwise.11 Accordingly, "[i]f defendant believed the instruction . . . required elaboration or clarification, he was obliged to request such elaboration or clarification in the tria | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mahoney v. San Francisco Employees' Retirement Board
green
2 sentences1977Bd. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 94 ], In Mahoney , petitioner filed a writ of mandate under section 1094.5 after the retirement board denied his industrial disability retirement benefits under section 171.1.3 of the city’s charter. 1977Bd. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 94 ], In Mahoney , petitioner filed a writ of mandate under section 1094.5 after the retirement board denied his industrial disability retirement benefits under section 171.1.3 of the city’s charter. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Hadley v. City of Ontario
green
2 sentences1977(See Hadley v. City of Ontario (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 121 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 513 ].) However, the commission contends that this case falls under the principle stated in Mahoney v. San Francisco City etc. Employees’ Ret. 1977(See Hadley v. City of Ontario (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 121 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 513 ].) However, the commission contends that this case falls under the principle stated in Mahoney v. San Francisco City etc. Employees’ Ret. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Jacobson
green
1 sentence1967(People v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, at pp. 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) But this case falls under the exception to the reversible per se rule stated in People v. Jacobson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 319 , and in People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], Her third and fifth statements added nothing to the essentials of the crime of voluntary manslaughter not contained in her admissible statements. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Cotter
green
2 sentences1967(People v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, at pp. 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) But this case falls under the exception to the reversible per se rule stated in People v. Jacobson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 319 , and in People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], Her third and fifth statements added nothing to the essentials of the crime of voluntary manslaughter not contained in her admissible statements. 1967(People v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, at pp. 51-52 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 429 P.2d 137 ], and cases cited.) But this case falls under the exception to the reversible per se rule stated in People v. Jacobson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 319 , and in People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], Her third and fifth statements added nothing to the essentials of the crime of voluntary manslaughter not contained in her admissible statements. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Harris v. Joffe
green
2 sentences1957(Harris v. Joffe, 28 Cal.2d 418 [ 170 P.2d 454 ].) Respondents admit this general rule but argue that the case falls under an exception because the injured child was putting the opening and lattice to a use not reasonably intended. 1957(Harris v. Joffe, 28 Cal.2d 418 [ 170 P.2d 454 ].) Respondents admit this general rule but argue that the case falls under an exception because the injured child was putting the opening and lattice to a use not reasonably intended. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.