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 2016–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Telish v. Cal. State Personnel Boardgreen2 sentences2020(Telish v. State Personnel Bd. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1487, fn. 4 [“An appellant’s failure to raise an argument in the opening brief waives the issue on appeal”].) Even Barriga, the party with the incentive to challenge the evidentiary ruling, did not do so. 2020(Telish v. State Personnel Bd. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1487, fn. 4 [“An appellant’s failure to raise an argument in the opening brief waives the issue on appeal”].) Even Barriga, the party with the incentive to challenge the evidentiary ruling, did not do so. | 2 | 2 |
Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2016(See Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 78 [determination of employee status is one of fact, and appellate courts “have no authority to simply second-guess the conclusion reached by the fact finder”].) Moreover, Farmers had an incentive to challenge the finding, as appellant sought to revive his wage claim, the viability of which depended largely on his status as an employee. 2016(See Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 78 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 ] [determination of employee status is one of fact, and appellate courts “have no authority to simply second-guess the conclusion reached by the fact finder”].) Moreover, Farmers had an incentive to challenge the finding, as appellant sought to revive his wage claim, the viability of which depended largely on his status as an employee. | 2 | 2 |
Verdugo v. Target Corp.green2 sentences2018"The applicability of the immunity statutes to entities that are under a common law duty to acquire and provide an AED would not in any way reduce or undermine the incentive that the immunity statutes provide to persons or entities that voluntarily obtain and make available AEDs." ( Verdugo, supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 332, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 .) *409 Similarly, we can evince no legislative intent to eviscerate the public trust in navigable waterways in the text or scope of SGMA. 2018"The applicability of the immunity statutes to entities that are under a common law duty to acquire and provide an AED would not in any way reduce or undermine the incentive that the immunity statutes provide to persons or entities that voluntarily obtain and make available AEDs." ( Verdugo, supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 332, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 .) *409 Similarly, we can evince no legislative intent to eviscerate the public trust in navigable waterways in the text or scope of SGMA. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hosner
green
2 sentences2017The denial of a transcript, we reasoned, "infects" the entire second trial, and an appellate court could only "hypothesize" what effect the transcript of a previous trial would have on the defendant's retrial. ( Hosner , 15 Cal.3d at p. 70 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 381 , 538 P.2d 1141 .) Moreover, an automatic reversal rule was required to ensure that the prosecution had an incentive to challenge-before trial-the defendant's right to a transcript. ( Ibid . ) And the defendant's right would be undermined by allowing the prosecution to wait until an appeal to litigate the need for a transcript "disguised 2017The denial of a transcript, we reasoned, "infects" the entire second trial, and an appellate court could only "hypothesize" what effect the transcript of a previous trial would have on the defendant's retrial. ( Hosner , 15 Cal.3d at p. 70 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 381 , 538 P.2d 1141 .) Moreover, an automatic reversal rule was required to ensure that the prosecution had an incentive to challenge-before trial-the defendant's right to a transcript. ( Ibid . ) And the defendant's right would be undermined by allowing the prosecution to wait until an appeal to litigate the need for a transcript "disguised | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.