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 2008–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teselle v. McLoughlingreen2 sentences2017(Id. at p. 850; see San Jose Const., supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1534 ; see also Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 169-170 (Teselle).) Marotta and the District dispute the elements of the HSAA's nonretroactivity defense. 2017(Id. at p. 850; see San Jose Const., supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1534 ; see also Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 169-170 (Teselle).) Marotta and the District dispute the elements of the HSAA's nonretroactivity defense. | 2 | 2 |
San Jose Construction, Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc.green2 sentences2017(Id. at p. 850; see San Jose Const., supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1534 ; see also Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 169-170 (Teselle).) Marotta and the District dispute the elements of the HSAA's nonretroactivity defense. 2017(Id. at p. 850; see San Jose Const., supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1534 ; see also Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 169-170 (Teselle).) Marotta and the District dispute the elements of the HSAA's nonretroactivity defense. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ledesmagreen2 sentences2008“A new or amended statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 , 140 P.3d 657 ], citing Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ]; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207-1208 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) Here, section 731.1 is essentially a nonretroactivity clause that applies to sections 731 and 733. 2008“A new or amended statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 , 140 P.3d 657 ], citing Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ]; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207-1208 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) Here, section 731.1 is essentially a nonretroactivity clause that applies to sections 731 and 733. | 1 | 1 |
Evangelatos v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2008“A new or amended statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 , 140 P.3d 657 ], citing Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ]; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207-1208 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) Here, section 731.1 is essentially a nonretroactivity clause that applies to sections 731 and 733. 2008“A new or amended statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 , 140 P.3d 657 ], citing Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ]; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207-1208 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) Here, section 731.1 is essentially a nonretroactivity clause that applies to sections 731 and 733. | 1 | 1 |
Tapia v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2008“A new or amended statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 , 140 P.3d 657 ], citing Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ]; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207-1208 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) Here, section 731.1 is essentially a nonretroactivity clause that applies to sections 731 and 733. 2008“A new or amended statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 , 140 P.3d 657 ], citing Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ]; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207-1208 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) Here, section 731.1 is essentially a nonretroactivity clause that applies to sections 731 and 733. | 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. Bank of San Luis Obispo
green
2 sentences2023Where two statutory construction tools operate in similar contexts and result in opposite outcomes, it is unsurprising that the 6 For instance, in People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo (1910) 159 Cal. 65 , our Supreme Court recited the abatement doctrine in considering the retroactive effect of a repealed statute that previously allowed the Attorney General to seek a decree declaring a bank insolvent. 2023Where two statutory construction tools operate in similar contexts and result in opposite outcomes, it is unsurprising that the 6 For instance, in People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo (1910) 159 Cal. 65 , our Supreme Court recited the abatement doctrine in considering the retroactive effect of a repealed statute that previously allowed the Attorney General to seek a decree declaring a bank insolvent. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
In re Tyrone A. Miller On Habeas Corpus
green
2 sentences2019The nonretroactivity claim was considered and rejected in Miller , supra , 14 Cal.App.5th at pages 977 through 978, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 . 2019The nonretroactivity claim was considered and rejected in Miller, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at pages 977 through 978. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
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.