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 1933–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carogreen2 sentences2006(People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1062 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 757 , 761 P.2d 680 ].) Nor do we find error in the prosecutor’s assertion that the mitigating evidence presented was insufficient and “a concoction of half-truths presented by well-intentioned individuals who are caring but misguided,” that defendant would not be entitled to mercy even if his mitigating evidence had been true, and that defense counsel had no additional mitigating evidence. 2006(People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1062 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 757 , 761 P.2d 680 ].) Nor do we find error in the prosecutor’s assertion that the mitigating evidence presented was insufficient and “a concoction of half-truths presented by well-intentioned individuals who are caring but misguided,” that defendant would not be entitled to mercy even if his mitigating evidence had been true, and that defense counsel had no additional mitigating evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mascarenasgreen2 sentences1981(Thor v. Boska (1974) 38 Cal. App.3d 558, 567 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 296 ]; People v. Mascarenas (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 660, 667 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 728 ].) It can hardly be claimed that the evidence would have been confusing or misleading: as offered it would merely have paralleled the evidence offered by the defense, through Stanley. 1981(Thor v. Boska (1974) 38 Cal. App.3d 558, 567 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 296 ]; People v. Mascarenas (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 660, 667 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 728 ].) It can hardly be claimed that the evidence would have been confusing or misleading: as offered it would merely have paralleled the evidence offered by the defense, through Stanley. | 1 | 1 |
Thor v. Boskagreen2 sentences1981(Thor v. Boska (1974) 38 Cal. App.3d 558, 567 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 296 ]; People v. Mascarenas (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 660, 667 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 728 ].) It can hardly be claimed that the evidence would have been confusing or misleading: as offered it would merely have paralleled the evidence offered by the defense, through Stanley. 1981(Thor v. Boska (1974) 38 Cal. App.3d 558, 567 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 296 ]; People v. Mascarenas (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 660, 667 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 728 ].) It can hardly be claimed that the evidence would have been confusing or misleading: as offered it would merely have paralleled the evidence offered by the defense, through Stanley. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yee Kinggreen2 sentences1978(See People v. Rowell (1901) 133 Cal. 39, 41 [ 65 P. 127 ]; People v. Yee King (1914) 24 Cal.App. 509, 511-513 [ 141 P. 1047 ].) The rationale behind the above mentioned cases is that the presumption of prejudice arising from jury misconduct can only be rebutted by the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial where the jury misconduct issue is raised. 1978(See People v. Rowell (1901) 133 Cal. 39, 41 [ 65 P. 127 ]; People v. Yee King (1914) 24 Cal.App. 509, 511-513 [ 141 P. 1047 ].) The rationale behind the above mentioned cases is that the presumption of prejudice arising from jury misconduct can only be rebutted by the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial where the jury misconduct issue is raised. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rowellgreen2 sentences1978(See People v. Rowell (1901) 133 Cal. 39, 41 [ 65 P. 127 ]; People v. Yee King (1914) 24 Cal.App. 509, 511-513 [ 141 P. 1047 ].) The rationale behind the above mentioned cases is that the presumption of prejudice arising from jury misconduct can only be rebutted by the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial where the jury misconduct issue is raised. 1978(See People v. Rowell (1901) 133 Cal. 39, 41 [ 65 P. 127 ]; People v. Yee King (1914) 24 Cal.App. 509, 511-513 [ 141 P. 1047 ].) The rationale behind the above mentioned cases is that the presumption of prejudice arising from jury misconduct can only be rebutted by the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial where the jury misconduct issue is raised. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yeagergreen2 sentences1934(People v. Murphy, 221 Cal. 37 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 635 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 474 [ 229 Pac. 40 ].) The evidence offered by the defense does not show that appellant, by reason of the use of intoxicants, was so disordered mentally at the time of attack on the deceased as to preclude the resultant killing from being of that “wilful, deliberate, and premeditated” character designated in section 189 of the Penal Code as murder in the first degree. 1934(People v. Murphy, 221 Cal. 37 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 635 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 474 [ 229 Pac. 40 ].) The evidence offered by the defense does not show that appellant, by reason of the use of intoxicants, was so disordered mentally at the time of attack on the deceased as to preclude the resultant killing from being of that “wilful, deliberate, and premeditated” character designated in section 189 of the Penal Code as murder in the first degree. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Royer v. Steinberg
green
1 sentence2013(Traditional Cat Assn., Inc. v. Gilbreath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 , and cases cited therein.) The trial court must “grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant‟s evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff‟s attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 .) We find that Gallizzi‟s “Welcome Back” message was privileged, thereby establishing as a matter of law that Jacobson did not and cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing upon the merits. 9 Even though the trial court did not reach th | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lin v. City of Pleasanton
green
1 sentence2013The Second Step in the Anti-SLAPP Motion: Jacobson Failed to Demonstrate a Probability of Prevailing Upon Her Claims Because defendants established that Jacobson‟s action arose from constitutionally protected speech, we turn to whether Jacobson showed a probability of prevailing on her claims.9 In that regard, Jacobson was required to “„“„demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by [her] is credited.‟”‟ [Citation.]” (Lin v. City of Pleasanton (2009) 176 Cal.App. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District
green
1 sentence2013(Traditional Cat Assn., Inc. v. Gilbreath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 , and cases cited therein.) The trial court must “grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant‟s evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff‟s attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 .) We find that Gallizzi‟s “Welcome Back” message was privileged, thereby establishing as a matter of law that Jacobson did not and cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing upon the merits. 9 Even though the trial court did not reach th | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester
red
1 sentence2013(Traditional Cat Assn., Inc. v. Gilbreath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 , and cases cited therein.) The trial court must “grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant‟s evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff‟s attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 .) We find that Gallizzi‟s “Welcome Back” message was privileged, thereby establishing as a matter of law that Jacobson did not and cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing upon the merits. 9 Even though the trial court did not reach th | 1 | 2013–2013 |
TRADITIONAL CAT ASS'N., INC. v. Gilbreath
green
1 sentence2013(Traditional Cat Assn., Inc. v. Gilbreath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 398 , and cases cited therein.) The trial court must “grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant‟s evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff‟s attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821 .) We find that Gallizzi‟s “Welcome Back” message was privileged, thereby establishing as a matter of law that Jacobson did not and cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing upon the merits. 9 Even though the trial court did not reach th | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. James
green
2 sentences1979Code, § 115; People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ] [proof by preponderance of the evidence on prosecution to establish justification for a warrantless arrest under some recognized exception to the warrant requirement].) The proof of witness-unavailability must be made by competent evidence ( Enriquez, supra, 19 Cal.3d 221 ; People v. Green (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 169 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 83 ]), which means that the exclusionary rules such as the hearsay, best evidence and opinion rules apply to the evidence offered at a hearing to determine this issue of declarant’s 1979Code, § 115; People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ] [proof by preponderance of the evidence on prosecution to establish justification for a warrantless arrest under some recognized exception to the warrant requirement].) The proof of witness-unavailability must be made by competent evidence ( Enriquez, supra, 19 Cal.3d 221 ; People v. Green (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 169 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 83 ]), which means that the exclusionary rules such as the hearsay, best evidence and opinion rules apply to the evidence offered at a hearing to determine this issue of declarant’s | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Enriquez
green
1 sentence1979Code, § 115; People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ] [proof by preponderance of the evidence on prosecution to establish justification for a warrantless arrest under some recognized exception to the warrant requirement].) The proof of witness-unavailability must be made by competent evidence ( Enriquez, supra, 19 Cal.3d 221 ; People v. Green (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 169 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 83 ]), which means that the exclusionary rules such as the hearsay, best evidence and opinion rules apply to the evidence offered at a hearing to determine this issue of declarant’s | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Green
green
2 sentences1979Code, § 115; People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ] [proof by preponderance of the evidence on prosecution to establish justification for a warrantless arrest under some recognized exception to the warrant requirement].) The proof of witness-unavailability must be made by competent evidence ( Enriquez, supra, 19 Cal.3d 221 ; People v. Green (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 169 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 83 ]), which means that the exclusionary rules such as the hearsay, best evidence and opinion rules apply to the evidence offered at a hearing to determine this issue of declarant’s 1979Code, § 115; People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ] [proof by preponderance of the evidence on prosecution to establish justification for a warrantless arrest under some recognized exception to the warrant requirement].) The proof of witness-unavailability must be made by competent evidence ( Enriquez, supra, 19 Cal.3d 221 ; People v. Green (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 169 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 83 ]), which means that the exclusionary rules such as the hearsay, best evidence and opinion rules apply to the evidence offered at a hearing to determine this issue of declarant’s | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1934(People v. Murphy, 221 Cal. 37 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 635 ]; People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 474 [ 229 Pac. 40 ].) The evidence offered by the defense does not show that appellant, by reason of the use of intoxicants, was so disordered mentally at the time of attack on the deceased as to preclude the resultant killing from being of that “wilful, deliberate, and premeditated” character designated in section 189 of the Penal Code as murder in the first degree. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
People v. Turco
green
2 sentences1933(People v. Turco, 104 Cal. App. 59 [ 285 Pac. 349 ]; People v. Sotelo, 102 Cal. App. 688 [ 283 Pac. 388 ].) Appellant contends that certain instructions given to the jury were misleading. 1933(People v. Turco, 104 Cal. App. 59 [ 285 Pac. 349 ]; People v. Sotelo, 102 Cal. App. 688 [ 283 Pac. 388 ].) Appellant contends that certain instructions given to the jury were misleading. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
People v. Sotelo
green
2 sentences1933(People v. Turco, 104 Cal. App. 59 [ 285 Pac. 349 ]; People v. Sotelo, 102 Cal. App. 688 [ 283 Pac. 388 ].) Appellant contends that certain instructions given to the jury were misleading. 1933(People v. Turco, 104 Cal. App. 59 [ 285 Pac. 349 ]; People v. Sotelo, 102 Cal. App. 688 [ 283 Pac. 388 ].) Appellant contends that certain instructions given to the jury were misleading. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.