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 2 courts 1983–1994 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCarthy v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1988In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding [citations] and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of `all the elements of a formal criminal charge.' ( McCarthy v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 459, 466 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 425 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 ].) If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establis 1988In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding [citations] and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of `all the elements of a formal criminal charge.' ( McCarthy v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 459, 466 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 425 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 ].) If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establis | 5 | 5 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1986If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establishing that such an act occurred, regardless of the allegations of the charging pleading....'" ( Crowson, at p. 634, quoted in Jackson , p. 834.) (1a) Concluding its review of Crowson, the Jackson opinion found that " Crowson established two propositions relevant to the present case: (1) that proof of a prior conviction establishes only the minimum elements of the crime, even if the charging pleading cont 1986If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establishing that such an act occurred, regardless of the allegations of the charging pleading....'" ( Crowson, at p. 634, quoted in Jackson , p. 834.) (1a) Concluding its review of Crowson, the Jackson opinion found that " Crowson established two propositions relevant to the present case: (1) that proof of a prior conviction establishes only the minimum elements of the crime, even if the charging pleading cont | 1 | 1 |
Bleeck v. State Board of Optometrygreen2 sentences1983In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding (Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 415, 428-430 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 860 ]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Judgments, §§ 209, 210, pp. 3348-3349) and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of “all the elements of a formal criminal charge.” (McCarthy v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 459, 466 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 425 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 ].) If proof of an overt act was not requ 1983In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding (Bleeck v. State Board of Optometry (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 415, 428-430 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 860 ]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Judgments, §§ 209, 210, pp. 3348-3349) and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of “all the elements of a formal criminal charge.” (McCarthy v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 459, 466 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 425 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 ].) If proof of an overt act was not requ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Crowson
green
2 sentences1994In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding [citations] and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of ‘all the elements of a formal criminal charge.’ [Citation.] If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establishing that such an act occurred, regardless of the allegations of the charging plead 1985Neither the People nor the defendant can go behind those adjudicated elements in an attempt to show that he committed a greater, lesser, or different offense. [Citations.]” “In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding [citations] and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of ‘all the elements of a formal criminal charge. ’ (McCarthy v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 459, 466 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 425 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 ].)” (People v. Crowson, | 3 | 1985–1994 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1994In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding [citations] and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of ‘all the elements of a formal criminal charge.’ [Citation.] If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establishing that such an act occurred, regardless of the allegations of the charging plead 1994In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel regards as conclusively determined only those issues actually and necessarily litigated in the prior proceeding [citations] and the United States Supreme Court has noted that a guilty plea is simply an admission of ‘all the elements of a formal criminal charge.’ [Citation.] If proof of an overt act was not required to sustain a conviction under the federal statute, neither a guilty verdict after a jury trial nor a plea of guilty may accurately be viewed as establishing that such an act occurred, regardless of the allegations of the charging plead | 1 | 1994–1994 |