7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2013 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. Minjaresgreen2 sentences2013Consistent with the California Supreme Court cases discussed above, the officers’ “subsequent examination of the [vehicle] for the purpose of determining its evidentiary value [did] not constitute a ‘search’ as that term is used in the California and federal Constitutions. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 549 .) Defendant appears to argue, however, that the instrumentality' exception no longer has validity, citing People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ] (Minjares) and People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 2013Consistent with the California Supreme Court cases discussed above, the officers’ “subsequent examination of the [vehicle] for the purpose of determining its evidentiary value [did] not constitute a ‘search’ as that term is used in the California and federal Constitutions. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 549 .) Defendant appears to argue, however, that the instrumentality' exception no longer has validity, citing People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ] (Minjares) and People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 | 1 | 4 |
People v. Griffingreen2 sentences2013The bloodstains that had soaked into the floorboard of the truck were clearly an appropriate subject of scientific examination and within the limits of the instrumentality exception.” (Griffin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1025.) Next, in Bittaker , a case that “antedatefd] the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings” (Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1077, fn. 15 ), the court held that “while the instrumentality doctrine justifie[d] the officer’s entry into the van to search for bloodstains and other evide 2013The bloodstains that had soaked into the floorboard of the truck were clearly an appropriate subject of scientific examination and within the limits of the instrumentality exception.” (Griffin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1025.) Next, in Bittaker , a case that “antedatefd] the enactment of article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, which bars exclusion of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings” (Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1077, fn. 15 ), the court held that “while the instrumentality doctrine justifie[d] the officer’s entry into the van to search for bloodstains and other evide | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bittakergreen2 sentences2013Consistent with the California Supreme Court cases discussed above, the officers’ “subsequent examination of the [vehicle] for the purpose of determining its evidentiary value [did] not constitute a ‘search’ as that term is used in the California and federal Constitutions. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 549 .) Defendant appears to argue, however, that the instrumentality' exception no longer has validity, citing People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ] (Minjares) and People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 2013Consistent with the California Supreme Court cases discussed above, the officers’ “subsequent examination of the [vehicle] for the purpose of determining its evidentiary value [did] not constitute a ‘search’ as that term is used in the California and federal Constitutions. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 549 .) Defendant appears to argue, however, that the instrumentality' exception no longer has validity, citing People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ] (Minjares) and People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Halperred2 sentences1995Accordingly, we will treat his raising it on appeal as equivalent to asserting the defense in the trial court. [7] In United States v. Halper, supra, 490 U.S. at page 446 [ 104 L.Ed.2d at page 500 ] and Austin v. United States (1993) ___ U.S. ___, ___, footnote 4 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 488, 495-497 , 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2804-2805 ], the United States Supreme Court cited these two cases without overturning or disapproving them. [8] The court later decided that a three-part instrumentality test should be applied to determine if a fine was excessive. ( U.S. v. Chandler (4th Cir.1994) 36 F.3d 358 , 365.) 1995Accordingly, we will treat his raising it on appeal as equivalent to asserting the defense in the trial court. [7] In United States v. Halper, supra, 490 U.S. at page 446 [ 104 L.Ed.2d at page 500 ] and Austin v. United States (1993) ___ U.S. ___, ___, footnote 4 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 488, 495-497 , 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2804-2805 ], the United States Supreme Court cited these two cases without overturning or disapproving them. [8] The court later decided that a three-part instrumentality test should be applied to determine if a fine was excessive. ( U.S. v. Chandler (4th Cir.1994) 36 F.3d 358 , 365.) | 1 | 1 |
Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.green2 sentences1970In that case, the court, obviously influenced by the fact that the defendants had undertaken a special responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety and had the superior knowledge as to how the injury occurred, held that the plaintiff could avail himself of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur against all doctors and hospital employees connected with the operation, although the evidence indicated that not all all of them could have been responsible. 3 A few years later the court in Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 39 Cal.2d 436, 443-444 [ 247 P.2d 344 ], used this significant language (which the main 1970In that case, the court, obviously influenced by the fact that the defendants had undertaken a special responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety and had the superior knowledge as to how the injury occurred, held that the plaintiff could avail himself of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur against all doctors and hospital employees connected with the operation, although the evidence indicated that not all all of them could have been responsible. 3 A few years later the court in Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 39 Cal.2d 436, 443-444 [ 247 P.2d 344 ], used this significant language (which the main | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Teale
green
2 sentences1982To the extent that there is a separate ‘instrumentality’ exception under either Constitution which in any way adds to the ‘automobile’ exception, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case.” The court went on to explain that in the leading “instrumental *183 ity” cases (People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal.2d 497 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 450 P.2d 564 ]; North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ]) the car itself was evi-. dence, and the so-called instrumentality exception applied to permit scientific examination. 1982To the extent that there is a separate ‘instrumentality’ exception under either Constitution which in any way adds to the ‘automobile’ exception, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case.” The court went on to explain that in the leading “instrumental *183 ity” cases (People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal.2d 497 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 450 P.2d 564 ]; North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ]) the car itself was evi-. dence, and the so-called instrumentality exception applied to permit scientific examination. | 2 | 1982–1988 |
United States v. Jones
green
2 sentences2013Defendant argues, however, that the recent case of United States v. Jones (2012) 565 U.S._[ 181 L.Ed.2d 911 , 132 S.Ct. 945 ] (Jones) indicates the police were required to obtain a warrant to search her vehicle. 2013Defendant argues, however, that the recent case of United States v. Jones (2012) 565 U.S._[ 181 L.Ed.2d 911 , 132 S.Ct. 945 ] (Jones) indicates the police were required to obtain a warrant to search her vehicle. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2013Consistent with the California Supreme Court cases discussed above, the officers’ “subsequent examination of the [vehicle] for the purpose of determining its evidentiary value [did] not constitute a ‘search’ as that term is used in the California and federal Constitutions. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 549 .) Defendant appears to argue, however, that the instrumentality' exception no longer has validity, citing People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 591 P.2d 514 ] (Minjares) and People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Chandler, II
green
2 sentences1995(U.S. v. Chandler (4th Cir. 1994) 36 F.3d 358 , 365.) 1995Accordingly, we will treat his raising it on appeal as equivalent to asserting the defense in the trial court. [7] In United States v. Halper, supra, 490 U.S. at page 446 [ 104 L.Ed.2d at page 500 ] and Austin v. United States (1993) ___ U.S. ___, ___, footnote 4 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 488, 495-497 , 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2804-2805 ], the United States Supreme Court cited these two cases without overturning or disapproving them. [8] The court later decided that a three-part instrumentality test should be applied to determine if a fine was excessive. ( U.S. v. Chandler (4th Cir.1994) 36 F.3d 358 , 365.) | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Austin v. United States
green
2 sentences1995Accordingly, we will treat his raising it on appeal as equivalent to asserting the defense in the trial court. [7] In United States v. Halper, supra, 490 U.S. at page 446 [ 104 L.Ed.2d at page 500 ] and Austin v. United States (1993) ___ U.S. ___, ___, footnote 4 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 488, 495-497 , 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2804-2805 ], the United States Supreme Court cited these two cases without overturning or disapproving them. [8] The court later decided that a three-part instrumentality test should be applied to determine if a fine was excessive. ( U.S. v. Chandler (4th Cir.1994) 36 F.3d 358 , 365.) 1995Accordingly, we will treat his raising it on appeal as equivalent to asserting the defense in the trial court. [7] In United States v. Halper, supra, 490 U.S. at page 446 [ 104 L.Ed.2d at page 500 ] and Austin v. United States (1993) ___ U.S. ___, ___, footnote 4 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 488, 495-497 , 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2804-2805 ], the United States Supreme Court cited these two cases without overturning or disapproving them. [8] The court later decided that a three-part instrumentality test should be applied to determine if a fine was excessive. ( U.S. v. Chandler (4th Cir.1994) 36 F.3d 358 , 365.) | 1 | 1995–1995 |
North v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1982To the extent that there is a separate ‘instrumentality’ exception under either Constitution which in any way adds to the ‘automobile’ exception, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case.” The court went on to explain that in the leading “instrumental *183 ity” cases (People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal.2d 497 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 450 P.2d 564 ]; North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ]) the car itself was evi-. dence, and the so-called instrumentality exception applied to permit scientific examination. 1982To the extent that there is a separate ‘instrumentality’ exception under either Constitution which in any way adds to the ‘automobile’ exception, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case.” The court went on to explain that in the leading “instrumental *183 ity” cases (People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal.2d 497 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 450 P.2d 564 ]; North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 833 , 502 P.2d 1305 , 57 A.L.R.3d 155 ]) the car itself was evi-. dence, and the so-called instrumentality exception applied to permit scientific examination. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Ybarra v. Spangard
green
2 sentences1970And, in the leading case of Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486 , the California Supreme Court, in an enlightened opinion, departed from the single instrumentality requirement as to a patient who had suffered a traumatic injury to his shoulder during an appendectomy operation. 1970And, in the leading case of Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486 , the California Supreme Court, in an enlightened opinion, departed from the single instrumentality requirement as to a patient who had suffered a traumatic injury to his shoulder during an appendectomy operation. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Marron v. United States
green
2 sentences1965In Marron v. United States (1927) 275 U.S. 192 [ 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ], federal officers lawfully entered a saloon and observed illegal sales of liquor. 1965In Marron v. United States (1927) 275 U.S. 192 [ 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ], federal officers lawfully entered a saloon and observed illegal sales of liquor. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.