7 California opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025(People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1195 [instructional error must be prejudicial to require reversal]; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 691 [“An error by counsel, . . . does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”].) Assuming arguendo instructional error occurred, we conclude any error was harmless, given the insurmountable evidence of Pec’s guilt in this case. 2020(People v. Camino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377 [court need not address both components of ineffective assistance inquiry if defendant makes insufficient showing on one]; Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 691 [“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”].) 8 C. | 3 | 3 |
Menendez v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016Penal Code section 11171.2, for example, specifies that its exception for information reported pursuant to the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act applies to both these privileges; however, the Legislature has created a criminal-proceeding exception to physician-patient privilege, but "has not done the same for the psychotherapist-patient privilege." ( Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435 , 456, fn. 18, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 .) Section 2225 itself precludes any implication that its exception to the physician-patient privilege was intended by the Legislature to create an 2016Penal Code section 11171.2, for example, specifies that its exception for information reported pursuant to the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act applies to both these privileges; however, the Legislature has created a criminal-proceeding exception to physician-patient privilege, but "has not done the same for the psychotherapist-patient privilege." ( Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435 , 456, fn. 18, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 .) Section 2225 itself precludes any implication that its exception to the physician-patient privilege was intended by the Legislature to create an | 1 | 2 |
Board of Education of the El Monte School District v. Calderongreen2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 2 |
People v. Diazgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1195 [instructional error must be prejudicial to require reversal]; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 691 [“An error by counsel, . . . does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”].) Assuming arguendo instructional error occurred, we conclude any error was harmless, given the insurmountable evidence of Pec’s guilt in this case. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caminogreen1 sentence2020(People v. Camino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377 [court need not address both components of ineffective assistance inquiry if defendant makes insufficient showing on one]; Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 691 [“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”].) 8 C. | 1 | 1 |
Helvering v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 1 |
People v. Griffingreen2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lentgreen2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 1 |
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Gibsongreen2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 1 |
Beckner v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green2 sentences1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca 1976The foregoing rule is in line with the numerous authorities which hold that, by reason of the difference in standards of proof in criminal and other actions, a prior acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not bar subsequent proceedings based upon the same underlying facts. {One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972) 409 U.S. 232, 235 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 438, 442 , 93 S.Ct. 489 ]; Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) 303 U.S. 391, 397 [ 82 L.Ed. 917, 920 , 58 S.Ct. 630 ]; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 487 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ]; People v. Griffin (1963) 60 Cal.2d 182, 191 [ 32 Ca | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1996(Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81 [ 101 L.Ed.2d 80 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 ].) Noting that after his challenge for cause was denied, the defendant used his peremptory challenge against the juror, the court in Ross held the defendant could not show he was harmed. 1996(Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81 [ 101 L.Ed.2d 80 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 ].) Noting that after his challenge for cause was denied, the defendant used his peremptory challenge against the juror, the court in Ross held the defendant could not show he was harmed. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.