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 2011–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sotelo-Urenagreen2 sentences2018(See *358 People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899 , 957, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 306 P.3d 1136 ; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732 , 756, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 [rule applied to expert defense evidence].) But even in the reply brief defendant fails to explain how the assumed error caused prejudice, he merely argues the jury "would have benefited" from the excluded testimony. 2018(See *358 People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899 , 957, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 306 P.3d 1136 ; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732 , 756, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 [rule applied to expert defense evidence].) But even in the reply brief defendant fails to explain how the assumed error caused prejudice, he merely argues the jury "would have benefited" from the excluded testimony. | 1 | 2 |
ASS'N FOR LA DEPUTY SHERIFFS v. County of LAgreen1 sentence2023(ALADS, supra, 648 F.3d at p. 997.) We need not address whether, as a matter of due process, Los Angeles County, the Department, or some other County entity is required to provide Thompson with a post- 18 We thus conclude that the Commission correctly dismissed Thompson’s suspension appeal after she withdrew her discharge appeal, which left the Commission without jurisdiction under the circumstances presented here.7 deprivation hearing where she can challenge her unpaid suspension. | 1 | 1 |
ALHUSAINY v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2021(See Alhusainy v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 385, 391 [fact that defendant consented to and benefited from illegal banishment condition to probation did not validate improper plea agreement].) Notwithstanding the apparent intentions of all the concerned parties, the attempt to creatively fashion a resolution in this case was unauthorized. 12 Under California law, the crime of human trafficking is comprised of three distinct offenses, which are codified in section 236.1: (1) the deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or serv | 1 | 1 |
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co.green1 sentence2020As noted ante, section 236.1, subdivision (h)(3), provides that a deprivation or violation of personal liberty “includes substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person under circumstances where the person receiving or apprehending the threat reasonably believes that it is likely that the person making the threat would carry it out.” (Italics added.) “‘Includes’ is ‘ordinarily a term of enlargement rather than limitation.’ [Citation.] T | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2018(See *358 People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899 , 957, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 306 P.3d 1136 ; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732 , 756, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 [rule applied to expert defense evidence].) But even in the reply brief defendant fails to explain how the assumed error caused prejudice, he merely argues the jury "would have benefited" from the excluded testimony. 2018(See *358 People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899 , 957, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 306 P.3d 1136 ; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732 , 756, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 [rule applied to expert defense evidence].) But even in the reply brief defendant fails to explain how the assumed error caused prejudice, he merely argues the jury "would have benefited" from the excluded testimony. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Flanagan v. Flanagan
green
1 sentence2020As noted ante, section 236.1, subdivision (h)(3), provides that a deprivation or violation of personal liberty “includes substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person under circumstances where the person receiving or apprehending the threat reasonably believes that it is likely that the person making the threat would carry it out.” (Italics added.) “‘Includes’ is ‘ordinarily a term of enlargement rather than limitation.’ [Citation.] T | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Shields
green
1 sentence2020“Under California law, the crime of human trafficking is comprised of three distinct offenses, which are codified in section 236.1: (1) the deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services (§ 236.1, subd. (a)); (2) the deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another with the intent to violate one of several specified Penal Code provisions (§ 236.1, subd. (b)); and (3) causing or attempting to cause a person who is a minor to engage in a commercial sex act with the intent to violate one of several specified Penal Code pro | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Center v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2011(See Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 300 .) The deprivation of a privilege resulting in the disclosure of private medical communications warrants writ review. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.