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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 2 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. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2016(See also People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 946, fn. 3 [expert may properly testify concerning typical gang member motivations and intent, though this touches on ultimate issues of motive and intent].) C. 2016(See also People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 946, fn. 3 [expert may properly testify concerning typical gang member motivations and intent, though this touches on ultimate issues of motive and intent].) C. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2016It goes without saying we have not considered such improper authority.” (People v. Wallace (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1105, fn. 9 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 618 ].) Turning now to the substance of Luna’s claim of preemption, we find no merit in the assertion that City’s permit requirement for medical marijuana dispensaries is preempted by federal law. 2016It goes without saying we have not considered such improper authority.” (People v. Wallace (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1105, fn. 9 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 618 ].) Turning now to the substance of Luna’s claim of preemption, we find no merit in the assertion that City’s permit requirement for medical marijuana dispensaries is preempted by federal law. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carrgreen1 sentence2013(See People v. Carr, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 488 [a defendant’s active participation in a criminal street gang is usually sufficient to prove he was aware of the gang’s criminal activities and purpose].) IV Next, we take up Luna’s claim there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding with respect to the street terrorism charge that he willfully promoted, furthered or assisted felonious gang conduct, i.e., Zavala’s murder. (§ 186.22, subd. (a).) The record contains substantial evidence to support that finding. | 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. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2026At the sentencing hearing, the court granted Luna’s motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 , and struck his two strike priors. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Williams v. Superior Court
red
1 sentence2021(Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 450 ; Calderon, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 940-941.) Rather, as we discuss in more detail when we address Luna’s challenge to his murder conviction, the prosecutor relied on the theory that the shootings were connected and that the earlier shooting by Morfin was highly probative of the motive for the group’s murder of Francisco only four days later. b. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Calderon v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021(Williams, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 450 ; Calderon, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 940-941.) Rather, as we discuss in more detail when we address Luna’s challenge to his murder conviction, the prosecutor relied on the theory that the shootings were connected and that the earlier shooting by Morfin was highly probative of the motive for the group’s murder of Francisco only four days later. b. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Mendoza Tello
green
1 sentence2014In our analysis, we will use the term “defense counsel” to refer to both trial and substitute defense counsel. 17 must be affirmed unless there could be no satisfactory explanation. [Citation.]” (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 569 .) “A claim of ineffective assistance in such a case is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 .) The record on appeal does not reveal the reason why defense counsel failed to object to the jury continuing deliberations while Judge Bacigalupo waited to confer with Judge Lew. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2014In our analysis, we will use the term “defense counsel” to refer to both trial and substitute defense counsel. 17 must be affirmed unless there could be no satisfactory explanation. [Citation.]” (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 569 .) “A claim of ineffective assistance in such a case is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 .) The record on appeal does not reveal the reason why defense counsel failed to object to the jury continuing deliberations while Judge Bacigalupo waited to confer with Judge Lew. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ross
green
1 sentence2014(See People v. Ross, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048 .) C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shin v. Ahn
green
1 sentence2008(See Shin v. Ahn, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 489 ; Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.) Accordingly, the question remains whether Vela breached his duty as the person who set up the front yard volleyball court not to increase the risks inherent in the sport. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.