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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Zapienred1 sentence2023(Cf. People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 123 [“we review the trial court’s ruling, ‘not the court’s reasoning and, if the ruling was correct on any ground, we affirm’”]; People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976 [a decision correct in law will not be disturbed on appeal because given for a wrong reason].) Ample circumstantial evidence, much of which the superior court summarized as it explained its reasons for denying Delaloza’s petition, supported the court’s express and implied findings that Delaloza was a direct aider and abettor of the murders, acting with knowledge of Penunuri’s unla | 1 | 1 |
People v. Camachogreen1 sentence2023(Cf. People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 123 [“we review the trial court’s ruling, ‘not the court’s reasoning and, if the ruling was correct on any ground, we affirm’”]; People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976 [a decision correct in law will not be disturbed on appeal because given for a wrong reason].) Ample circumstantial evidence, much of which the superior court summarized as it explained its reasons for denying Delaloza’s petition, supported the court’s express and implied findings that Delaloza was a direct aider and abettor of the murders, acting with knowledge of Penunuri’s unla | 1 | 1 |
People v. Juan G.green1 sentence2022(In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (Juan G.).) “Among the factors which 19 At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on February 10, 2021, when it announced Ignacio was ineligible for relief under section 1170.95, the trial court stated it was required to “act as an independent factfinder.” The trial court’s decision to recall the case two weeks later appears to have been motivated in part to clarify the legal standard it had applied. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mowergreen1 sentence2015"In its fundamental sense, 'jurisdiction' refers to a court's power over persons and subject matter." (People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 474, fn.6 .) Jurisdiction in its less fundamental sense is used to refer to cases "where, though the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in the fundamental sense, it has no 'jurisdiction' (or power) to act except in a particular manner, or to give certain kinds of relief, or to act without the occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites." (Abelleira v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Norgart v. Upjohn Co.green1 sentence2015Corp. (6th Cir. 1991) 936 F.2d 244 , 251; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 ["The 'doctrine of invited error' is an 'application of the estoppel principle': 'Where a party by his conduct induces the 10 commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal' on appeal"].) Meyer's argument that the court did not follow the procedure prescribed in section 6344 and exceeded its jurisdiction when it awarded attorney fees after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing implicates jurisdiction in its less fundamental sense, and may be waived or forfeited on appe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floydyellow2 sentences1992At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that defendant had failed to present evidence showing that “the photographic lineup was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a likelihood of. . . irreparable misidentification.” (See People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 712 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ].) Accordingly, the court admitted Angela’s pretrial identifications of defendant in the photo lineups. 1992At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that defendant had failed to present evidence showing that “the photographic lineup was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a likelihood of. . . irreparable misidentification.” (See People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 712 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ].) Accordingly, the court admitted Angela’s pretrial identifications of defendant in the photo lineups. | 1 | 1 |
Thorn v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1989The County appeals, contending the trial court erred in requiring the County to assume the burden of proof and in requiring the County to justify certification by clear and convincing evidence. 2 Introduction “It cannot be disputed that the treatment and possible necessary confinement of the mentally ill presents many special and ofttimes difficult problems. *1245 “Although the LPS act authorizes a process somewhat more medical than the former civil commitment procedures which it repealed, nevertheless the provisions of the act. . . demonstrate the concern of the Legislature that the patient’s 1989The County appeals, contending the trial court erred in requiring the County to assume the burden of proof and in requiring the County to justify certification by clear and convincing evidence. 2 Introduction “It cannot be disputed that the treatment and possible necessary confinement of the mentally ill presents many special and ofttimes difficult problems. *1245 “Although the LPS act authorizes a process somewhat more medical than the former civil commitment procedures which it repealed, nevertheless the provisions of the act. . . demonstrate the concern of the Legislature that the patient’s | 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. Chhoun
green
1 sentence2026Applicable Law and Standard of Review Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) provides that at an evidentiary hearing, “[t]he admission of evidence in the hearing shall be governed by the Evidence Code, except that the court may consider evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial that is admissible under current law, including witness testimony, stipulated evidence, and matters judicially noticed.” “T]he People are generally entitled to introduce evidence of a defendant’s gang affiliation and activity if it is relevant to the charged offense. [Citation.] ‘Evidence of the defendant’s | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences2025It is for that reason that the original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.” ( Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) 11 knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.’ ” (Reyes, at p. 991.) Indeed, the trial court agreed with the prosecutor, finding at the conclusion of the evidentiar 2025It is for that reason that the original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.” ( Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) 11 knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.’ ” (Reyes, at p. 991.) Indeed, the trial court agreed with the prosecutor, finding at the conclusion of the evidentiar | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Fryman v. Federal Crop Insurance
green
1 sentence2015Corp. (6th Cir. 1991) 936 F.2d 244 , 251; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 ["The 'doctrine of invited error' is an 'application of the estoppel principle': 'Where a party by his conduct induces the 10 commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal' on appeal"].) Meyer's argument that the court did not follow the procedure prescribed in section 6344 and exceeded its jurisdiction when it awarded attorney fees after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing implicates jurisdiction in its less fundamental sense, and may be waived or forfeited on appe | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Faton v. Ahmedo CA4/1
green
1 sentence2015(Cf. Faton, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1169, 1170-1171 [rejecting appellant's "assertion that the court had no authority to award attorney fees because [respondent] did not follow the procedure for fee requests provided in the 4 Meyer further contends that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar the litigation of the attorney fee issue after the conclusion of a DVRO hearing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Wende
green
1 sentence2013At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court expressly stated she believed the testimony of the victim that she had been assaulted by appellant: “I have to make a credibility call, and at this time I do find there is a willful violation of probation.” Probation was revoked and appellant was sentenced to the midterm of two years in state prison to be served in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(A). 1 Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief arguing no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.