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 1968–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Younggreen2 sentences2005Thus, in 1994, when it passed section 2933.1 and placed it in the same article as sections 2933.6 and 2934, the Legislature clearly knew how to, but did not, adopt language that would have made section 2933.1(a)'s credit limit applicable only "during the time" (§ 2933.6) a prisoner *21 is confined for the violent felony conviction or during that portion of a prisoner's current prison confinement "attributable to" (§ 2934) the violent felony conviction. [24] As we recently explained in construing the same article of the Penal Code at issue here, "`[w]here a statute referring to one subject cont 2005Thus, in 1994, when it passed section 2933.1 and placed it in the same article as sections 2933.6 and 2934, the Legislature clearly knew how to, but did not, adopt language that would have made section 2933.1(a)'s credit limit applicable only "during the time" (§ 2933.6) a prisoner *21 is confined for the violent felony conviction or during that portion of a prisoner's current prison confinement "attributable to" (§ 2934) the violent felony conviction. [24] As we recently explained in construing the same article of the Penal Code at issue here, "`[w]here a statute referring to one subject cont | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfelgreen2 sentences2002This repeal did not "change the legal consequences" ( Apfel, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 548 , 118 S.Ct. 2131 ) of defendants' conduct in manufacturing or distributing tobacco products before the effective date of the immunity. 2002This repeal did not "change the legal consequences" ( Apfel, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 548 , 118 S.Ct. 2131 ) of defendants' conduct in manufacturing or distributing tobacco products before the effective date of the immunity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First State Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2003Co. v. Superior Court, supra, “urge[d] the Legislature to consider the matter and determine whether the procedures established by section 437c should be modified in a case involving complex litigation and, if so, in what manner.” ( 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 336 .) The dissent in Cottle provided a well-reasoned argument against permitting such a procedure. 2003Co. v. Superior Court, supra , "urge[d] the Legislature to consider the matter and determine whether the procedures established by section 437c should be modified in a case involving complex litigation and, if so, in what manner." ( 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 336 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 104 .) [11] The dissent in Cottle provided a well-reasoned argument against permitting such a procedure. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Barbara R.
green
2 sentences2007In In re Barbara R., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th 941 , 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 , one attorney was appointed to represent two siblings. 2007In In re Barbara R., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th 941 , 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 , one attorney was appointed to represent two siblings. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
DeBacker v. Brainard
green
2 sentences1970We here observe that in DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 148 , 90 S.Ct. 163 ], the issue of the right to a jury trial was tendered to the United States Supreme Court, but it declined to rule on the issue on the basis that the DeBacker proceedings predated May 20, 1968, the effective date of the principle announced in Duncan . 1970We here observe that in DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 148 , 90 S.Ct. 163 ], the issue of the right to a jury trial was tendered to the United States Supreme Court, but it declined to rule on the issue on the basis that the DeBacker proceedings predated May 20, 1968, the effective date of the principle announced in Duncan . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Johnson v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences1968(See Johnson v. New Jersey (1966) 384 U.S. 719 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 882 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 ].) However, at that time defendant and his counsel stipulated in open court that the cause be submitted on the testimony contained in the transcript of proceedings had at the preliminary hearing. 1968(See Johnson v. New Jersey (1966) 384 U.S. 719 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 882 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 ].) However, at that time defendant and his counsel stipulated in open court that the cause be submitted on the testimony contained in the transcript of proceedings had at the preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1968This case came to trial on June 20, 1966, one week after the effective date of the rule in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]. 1968This case came to trial on June 20, 1966, one week after the effective date of the rule in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.