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 1994–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLCgreen1 sentence2025(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146 [“ ‘In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’ ”].) 11 We also dispatch Mora’s claim that the trial court erred because it “failed to address” defendants’ failure to correct the record within 21 days of service of motion. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Laceygreen1 sentence2023(See Garcia v. Lacey (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406 [“A lit- igation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the ac- tion or proceeding he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff.”]; Fink, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1173–1174 [involuntary dis- missals of untimely appeals were final, adverse determinations].) Thus, Mora’s claim that the first case was dismissed for not posting an undertaking and the second, for not paying court fees, is immaterial—he did not win ei- ther of the actions he began. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Wachovia Bankgreen1 sentence2022Mora’s Evidence As the moving party, Mora had the initial burden to show that plaintiffs’ claims have no merit—that is, that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (§ 437c, subd. (o); see Jones v. Wachovia Bank (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 935, 945 .) “If a defendant’s moving papers make a prima facie 26 showing that justifies a judgment in its favor, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Jones, at p. 945; Profession | 1 | 1 |
People v. Olveragreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., People v. Vivar (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 216 , 224, review granted Mar. 25, 2020, S260270 (Vivar) [denial of section 1473.7 motion asserting statutory error reviewed for abuse of discretion]; People v. Olvera (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1116 [employing less deferential mixed question of law and fact standard]; People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 67, 79 [independent review proper where the record consists solely of written declarations].) We do not enter this fray because, under any standard of review, we would affirm the trial court’s denial of Mora’s motion. 5 Mora had the burde | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ogunmowogreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., People v. Vivar (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 216 , 224, review granted Mar. 25, 2020, S260270 (Vivar) [denial of section 1473.7 motion asserting statutory error reviewed for abuse of discretion]; People v. Olvera (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1116 [employing less deferential mixed question of law and fact standard]; People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 67, 79 [independent review proper where the record consists solely of written declarations].) We do not enter this fray because, under any standard of review, we would affirm the trial court’s denial of Mora’s motion. 5 Mora had the burde | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557 , 653, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ( Gurule ).) Mora failed to object on this basis during his trial and has forfeited the claim on appeal. ( Gutierrez , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 819, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 200 P.3d 847 .) Even if he had not, Mora's objection to testimony that the lineup procedure following Juhn's attack was designed to protect Juhn from Mora "or from one of his other gang members that he knows," cannot be understood to imply Mora's gang membership. 2018(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557 , 653, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ( Gurule ).) Mora failed to object on this basis during his trial and has forfeited the claim on appeal. ( Gutierrez , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 819, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 200 P.3d 847 .) Even if he had not, Mora's objection to testimony that the lineup procedure following Juhn's attack was designed to protect Juhn from Mora "or from one of his other gang members that he knows," cannot be understood to imply Mora's gang membership. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Luparellogreen2 sentences1994(Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ].) The issue has been rather conclusively resolved against his position. 2 Mora’s reliance on People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 832 ] is misplaced. 1994(Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ].) The issue has been rather conclusively resolved against his position. 2 Mora’s reliance on People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 832 ] is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Freemangreen2 sentences1994(Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ].) The issue has been rather conclusively resolved against his position. 2 Mora’s reliance on People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 832 ] is misplaced. 1994(Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ].) The issue has been rather conclusively resolved against his position. 2 Mora’s reliance on People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 832 ] is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fink v. Shemtov
green
1 sentence2023(See Garcia v. Lacey (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406 [“A lit- igation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the ac- tion or proceeding he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff.”]; Fink, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1173–1174 [involuntary dis- missals of untimely appeals were final, adverse determinations].) Thus, Mora’s claim that the first case was dismissed for not posting an undertaking and the second, for not paying court fees, is immaterial—he did not win ei- ther of the actions he began. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Krebs
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265, 335 .) As for Mora’s brief reference to the fact he’d been in custody with Lampe, the comment was harmless because the jury had already learned they’d both been arrested for Wimberley’s murder. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sanchez v. Kern Emergency Medical Transportation Corp.
green
1 sentence2022The absence of a medical expert opinion in support of plaintiffs’ opposition is fatal. “ ‘Whenever the plaintiff claims negligence in the medical context, the plaintiff must present evidence from an expert that the defendant breached his or her duty to the plaintiff and that the breach caused the injury to the plaintiff.’ [Citation] ‘ “ ‘When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.’ ” | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron
green
1 sentence2022Mora’s Evidence As the moving party, Mora had the initial burden to show that plaintiffs’ claims have no merit—that is, that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (§ 437c, subd. (o); see Jones v. Wachovia Bank (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 935, 945 .) “If a defendant’s moving papers make a prima facie 26 showing that justifies a judgment in its favor, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Jones, at p. 945; Profession | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jae Lee v. United States
green
2 sentences2021“As a general matter, it makes sense that a defendant who has no realistic defense to a charge supported by sufficient evidence will be unable to carry his burden of showing prejudice from accepting a guilty plea.” (Lee v. United States (2017) __ U.S. __, __ [ 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1966 ] (Lee).) There can be exceptions in exceptional situations, as would be the case where a prosecutor offered an 18-year sentence and trial could mean at most a 20-year sentence. ( Lee, supra, 137 S.Ct. at pp. 1966–1967.) 6 Another exceptional example comes from the facts of the Lee case itself. 2021“As a general matter, it makes sense that a defendant who has no realistic defense to a charge supported by sufficient evidence will be unable to carry his burden of showing prejudice from accepting a guilty plea.” (Lee v. United States (2017) __ U.S. __, __ [ 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1966 ] (Lee).) There can be exceptions in exceptional situations, as would be the case where a prosecutor offered an 18-year sentence and trial could mean at most a 20-year sentence. ( Lee, supra, 137 S.Ct. at pp. 1966–1967.) 6 Another exceptional example comes from the facts of the Lee case itself. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Gurule
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557 , 653, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ( Gurule ).) Mora failed to object on this basis during his trial and has forfeited the claim on appeal. ( Gutierrez , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 819, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 200 P.3d 847 .) Even if he had not, Mora's objection to testimony that the lineup procedure following Juhn's attack was designed to protect Juhn from Mora "or from one of his other gang members that he knows," cannot be understood to imply Mora's gang membership. 2018(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557 , 653, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 , 51 P.3d 224 ( Gurule ).) Mora failed to object on this basis during his trial and has forfeited the claim on appeal. ( Gutierrez , supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 819, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 200 P.3d 847 .) Even if he had not, Mora's objection to testimony that the lineup procedure following Juhn's attack was designed to protect Juhn from Mora "or from one of his other gang members that he knows," cannot be understood to imply Mora's gang membership. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Victor v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences1994(Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ].) The issue has been rather conclusively resolved against his position. 2 Mora’s reliance on People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 832 ] is misplaced. 1994(Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. _ [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ]; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ].) The issue has been rather conclusively resolved against his position. 2 Mora’s reliance on People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 832 ] is misplaced. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.