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 1967–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grillgreen2 sentences2025(See, e.g., Ann M., supra, [6 Cal.4th] at p. 679; Delgado, supra, [36 Cal.4th] at pp. 243–244, fn. 24; Castaneda . . . , supra, [41 Cal.4th] at p. 1213.) These decisions implicitly recognize that, in the absence of such heightened foreseeability, the determination whether a business (or businesses in general) should be required to provide a costly or burdensome precautionary safety measure to protect against potential future third party criminal conduct should more appropriately be made by the Legislature rather than by a jury 10 applying a general reasonableness standard in a particular case. 2014(See, e.g., Ann M., supra, at p. 679; Delgado, supra, at pp. 243-244, fn. 24 ; Castaneda v. Olsher, supra, at p. 1213 .) These decisions implicitly recognize that, in the absence of such heightened foreseeability, the determination whether a business (or businesses in general) should be required to provide a costly or burdensome precautionary safety measure to protect against potential future third-party criminal conduct should more appropriately be made by the Legislature rather than by a jury applying a general reasonableness standard in a particular case. | 1 | 2 |
Castaneda v. Olshergreen2 sentences2025(Castaneda, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1213 [“the existence and scope of a property owner’s duty to protect against third party crime is a question of law for the court to resolve”].) b. 2014(See, e.g., Ann M., supra, at p. 679; Delgado, supra, at pp. 243-244, fn. 24 ; Castaneda v. Olsher, supra, at p. 1213 .) These decisions implicitly recognize that, in the absence of such heightened foreseeability, the determination whether a business (or businesses in general) should be required to provide a costly or burdensome precautionary safety measure to protect against potential future third-party criminal conduct should more appropriately be made by the Legislature rather than by a jury applying a general reasonableness standard in a particular case. | 1 | 2 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen1 sentence1990See 392 U.S. at 21-22 . | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Jordangreen2 sentences1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, 1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, | 1 | 1 |
Murdock v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, 1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, | 1 | 1 |
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnettegreen2 sentences1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, 1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Collinsgreen2 sentences1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, 1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, | 1 | 1 |
Long v. City of Anaheimgreen2 sentences1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, 1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Sheena K.
green
2 sentences2023In addition to a general reasonableness requirement, a probation condition “ ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness.” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) Here, condition 7.b is not unconstitutionally vague. 2022In addition to a general reasonableness requirement, a probation condition “ ‘must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated,’ if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness.” 9 (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 890 .) Here, Condition 7b is not unconstitutionally vague. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Verdugo v. Target Corp.
green
1 sentence2025(See, e.g., Ann M., supra, [6 Cal.4th] at p. 679; Delgado, supra, [36 Cal.4th] at pp. 243–244, fn. 24; Castaneda . . . , supra, [41 Cal.4th] at p. 1213.) These decisions implicitly recognize that, in the absence of such heightened foreseeability, the determination whether a business (or businesses in general) should be required to provide a costly or burdensome precautionary safety measure to protect against potential future third party criminal conduct should more appropriately be made by the Legislature rather than by a jury 10 applying a general reasonableness standard in a particular case. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Robbins
green
1 sentence2022(In re Reno, at p. 461.) The “basic issue is whether [the petition] was ‘ “ ‘filed as promptly as the circumstances allow.’ ” ’ ” (In re Taylor, at p. 555.) “Substantial delay is measured from the time the petitioner or his or her counsel knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim.” (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 .) A claim that is substantially delayed will nevertheless be considered on the merits if the petitioner can demonstrate good cause for the delay. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Reno
green
1 sentence2022(In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 14 459; In re Taylor, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 555 .) California law does not set a specific time limit; instead, we apply a general reasonableness standard to determine timeliness. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Taylor
green
2 sentences2022(In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 14 459; In re Taylor, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 555 .) California law does not set a specific time limit; instead, we apply a general reasonableness standard to determine timeliness. 2022(In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428 , 14 459; In re Taylor, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 555 .) California law does not set a specific time limit; instead, we apply a general reasonableness standard to determine timeliness. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rowland v. Christian
red
2 sentences2014There are, of course, differences between the risk to a business patron posed by potential third-party criminal conduct on the business‟s premises and the risk that a patron may suffer a medical emergency on a business‟s premises because of the patron‟s own medical condition, and those differences, in many circumstances, may reasonably affect the nature and scope of the duty that a business owes to protect a patron from such risk of harm.20 For purposes of resolving the issue before us in this case, however, we 19 These factors are among those set forth in Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2 2014There are, of course, differences between the risk to a business patron posed by potential third-party criminal conduct on the business‟s premises and the risk that a patron may suffer a medical emergency on a business‟s premises because of the patron‟s own medical condition, and those differences, in many circumstances, may reasonably affect the nature and scope of the duty that a business owes to protect a patron from such risk of harm.20 For purposes of resolving the issue before us in this case, however, we 19 These factors are among those set forth in Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Danskin v. San Diego Unified School District
green
2 sentences1967However, it is apparent that freedom of expression would rest upon a feeble foundation indeed if the district’s standards were applicable to First Amendment rights, for Danskin ( 28 Cal.2d at p. 550 ) and numerous other cases have recognized that the general reasonableness test applicable to the due process and equal protection clauses is not to be utilized where First Amendment rights are at stake. 1967However, it is apparent that freedom of expression would rest upon a feeble foundation indeed if the district's standards were applicable to First Amendment rights, for Danskin ( 28 Cal.2d at p. 550 ) and numerous other cases have recognized that the general reasonableness test applicable to the due process and equal protection clauses is not to be utilized where First Amendment rights are at stake. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
United States v. Miller
green
2 sentences1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ] ; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ] ; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ] ; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F.Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ] ; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, 1967(See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 639 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628, 1638 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; United States v. Miller (1965) 249 F. Supp. 59, 63 ; Weaver v. Jordan (1966) 64 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 537 , 411 P.2d 289 ]; Long v. City of Anaheim (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 191, 201 [ 63 Cal. Rptr. 56 ].) It was pointed out by a majority of this court in Weaver v. Jordan, supra, | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.