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 1 courts 2014–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Superior Court (Jones)green1 sentence2026(People v. Superior Court (Jones) (1998) 18 Cal.4th 667, 681 [“Findings of fact are reviewed under a ‘substantial evidence’ standard. [Citation.] The standard is deferential: ‘When a trial court’s factual determination is attacked on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court 2 begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the determination . . . .’”].) There was sufficient evidence presented at trial, including police officer iden | 1 | 1 |
Escobar v. Floresgreen2 sentences2017(Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 308 ; Escobar, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 752 [“Under the substantial evidence standard of review, „where two or more different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, this court is without power to substitute its own inferences for those of the trial court and decide the case accordingly‟”].) For example, although the record shows Gavin attempted to mediate the MHI dispute involving Dick, Rick, and Cox, the evidence also shows Dick forwarded the Blaskey e-mail to Ninetta‟s e-mail address, not Gavin‟s. 2017(Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 308 ; Escobar, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 752 [“Under the substantial evidence standard of review, „where two or more different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, this court is without power to substitute its own inferences for those of the trial court and decide the case accordingly‟”].) For example, although the record shows Gavin attempted to mediate the MHI dispute involving Dick, Rick, and Cox, the evidence also shows Dick forwarded the Blaskey e-mail to Ninetta‟s e-mail address, not Gavin‟s. | 1 | 1 |
Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospitalgreen2 sentences2017(Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 308 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 , 282 P.3d 1250 ]; Escobar, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 752 [“Under the substantial evidence standard of review, ‘where two or more different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, this court is without power to substitute its own inferences for those of the trial court and decide the case accordingly’ ”].) Lor example, although the record shows Gavin attempted to mediate the MHI dispute involving Dick, Rick, and Cox, the evidence also shows Dick forwarded the Blaskey e-mail to Ninetta’s e-mail ad 2017(Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 308 ; Escobar, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 752 [“Under the substantial evidence standard of review, „where two or more different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, this court is without power to substitute its own inferences for those of the trial court and decide the case accordingly‟”].) For example, although the record shows Gavin attempted to mediate the MHI dispute involving Dick, Rick, and Cox, the evidence also shows Dick forwarded the Blaskey e-mail to Ninetta‟s e-mail address, not Gavin‟s. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lazar v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2025The majority preserves the jury’s findings as to the employment claim under the governing substantial evidence rule, but fails to credit the jury’s finding that PG&E is liable for defamation notwithstanding a record that establishes all elements of that tort. 9 For its part, PG&E makes no substantive effort to show that Hearn’s defamation claim is “ ‘indistinguishable from an ordinary constructive wrongful termination.’ ” (Lazar, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 643 .) The Hunter jury found the employer in that case had breached an implied contract not to terminate Hunter’s employment without good caus 2025The majority preserves the jury’s findings as to the employment claim under the governing substantial evidence rule, but fails to credit the jury’s finding that PG&E is liable for defamation notwithstanding a record that establishes all elements of that tort. 9 For its part, PG&E makes no substantive effort to show that Hearn’s defamation claim is “ ‘indistinguishable from an ordinary constructive wrongful termination.’ ” (Lazar, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 643 .) The Hunter jury found the employer in that case had breached an implied contract not to terminate Hunter’s employment without good caus | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In Re JK
green
2 sentences2014As recently explained in In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 , section 300, subdivision (a) provides that jurisdiction may be based on a prior incident of harm or a current or future risk. 2014As explained in In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 , section 300, subdivision (b) provides that jurisdiction may be based on a prior incident of harm or a current or future risk. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Strong
green
1 sentence2023We shall elaborate, but under the governing substantial evidence standard (People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276 , 298; People v. Owens (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1015 , 1022), there is no basis to reverse the trial court’s ruling. 8 A. The Reckless Indifference to Human Life Standard Until recently, “neither the United States Supreme Court nor California courts offered much guidance about the major participant or reckless indifference standards . . . .” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705 .) Our Supreme Court “first undertook to provide that guidance in [People v.] Banks [(2015) 61 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Banks
green
2 sentences2023We shall elaborate, but under the governing substantial evidence standard (People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276 , 298; People v. Owens (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1015 , 1022), there is no basis to reverse the trial court’s ruling. 8 A. The Reckless Indifference to Human Life Standard Until recently, “neither the United States Supreme Court nor California courts offered much guidance about the major participant or reckless indifference standards . . . .” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705 .) Our Supreme Court “first undertook to provide that guidance in [People v.] Banks [(2015) 61 2023We shall elaborate, but under the governing substantial evidence standard (People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276 , 298; People v. Owens (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1015 , 1022), there is no basis to reverse the trial court’s ruling. 8 A. The Reckless Indifference to Human Life Standard Until recently, “neither the United States Supreme Court nor California courts offered much guidance about the major participant or reckless indifference standards . . . .” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705 .) Our Supreme Court “first undertook to provide that guidance in [People v.] Banks [(2015) 61 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Clark v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2017Under that standard, “The trial court‟s order is „“presumed correct; all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [it]; conflicts in the declarations must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and the trial court‟s resolution of any factual disputes arising from the evidence is conclusive.”‟ [Citations.] Hence, we presume the trial court found in [Dick‟s] favor on „all disputed factual issues.‟ . . . „In viewing the evidence, we look only to the evidence supporting the prevailing party. [Citation.] We discard evidence unfavorable to the prevailing party as not having suffic | 1 | 2017–2017 |