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 3 courts 1979–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew H.K. Wong v. The Regents of the University of Californiagreen1 sentence2024Idaho 2021) 512 F.Supp.3d 1124 (hereafter, Chew). 71 See id., at pp. 1126-1128 ; see also id., at p. 1127 (explaining that temporary restraining order, like preliminary injunction, is to preserve status quo, but typically lasts 28 days while preliminary injunction may extend until lawsuit ends). 72 Id., at p. 1129 , citing Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (9th Cir. 1999) 192 F.3d 807, 818 ; Crowder v. Kitagawa, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 1486 . 73 Chew, supra, at pp. 1130-1131. 74 We acknowledge that the ADA excuses a covered entity from providing an otherwise required accommodation to an employee w | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hicksgreen1 sentence2015As described by our Supreme Court, in Alleyne, ‘the United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution’s Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial, with a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof, as to “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum” sentence for a crime.’ [Citation.] The denial of a recall petition does not increase the mandatory minimum sentence for a defendant’s crime.” (See Hicks, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 286 [the court properly makes factual determinations for purposes of deciding eligibility for resentencing under section 1170.126 ].) Nothin | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramosgreen2 sentences2007(People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1165 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 , 938 P.2d 950 ].) Nothing defendant presents here causes us to reconsider this conclusion. 2007(People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1165 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 , 938 P.2d 950 ].) Nothing defendant presents here causes us to reconsider this conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Delos v. Farmers Insurance Groupgreen2 sentences1981We recently expressed our frustration with the present legislative scheme in Delos v. Farmers Insurance Group (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 642, 667-668 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 843 ]. 1981We recently expressed our frustration with the present legislative scheme in Delos v. Farmers Insurance Group (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 642, 667-668 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 843 ]. | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Browngreen2 sentences1979(See Flores v. Brown (1952) 39 Cal.2d 622, 630-632 [ 248 P.2d 922 ].) That legislative judgment remains as binding under comparative negligence as it was under the previous all or nothing doctrine of contributory negligence. 1979(See Flores v. Brown (1952) 39 Cal.2d 622, 630-632 [ 248 P.2d 922 ].) That legislative judgment remains as binding under comparative negligence as it was under the previous all or nothing doctrine of contributory negligence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fredette v. City of Long Beach
green
1 sentence2025Her “actions were simply not those of a reasonably prudent person exercising due care under the same or similar circumstances.” (Fredette, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 133 .) Nothing defendants did or did not do was the proximate cause of Agustin’s injury. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Vernon Crowder Stephanie Good v. Yukio Kitagawa, Chairman, Board of Agriculture, State of Hawaii Calvin Lum
green
1 sentence2024Idaho 2021) 512 F.Supp.3d 1124 (hereafter, Chew). 71 See id., at pp. 1126-1128 ; see also id., at p. 1127 (explaining that temporary restraining order, like preliminary injunction, is to preserve status quo, but typically lasts 28 days while preliminary injunction may extend until lawsuit ends). 72 Id., at p. 1129 , citing Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (9th Cir. 1999) 192 F.3d 807, 818 ; Crowder v. Kitagawa, supra, 81 F.3d at p. 1486 . 73 Chew, supra, at pp. 1130-1131. 74 We acknowledge that the ADA excuses a covered entity from providing an otherwise required accommodation to an employee w | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Myles
green
1 sentence2023(See People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 33; People v. Myles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 688 , 705.) DISPOSITION The order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed. \s\ , Krause, J. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Njoku
green
1 sentence2023(See People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 33; People v. Myles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 688 , 705.) DISPOSITION The order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed. \s\ , Krause, J. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Guerra
red
1 sentence2007The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to any trial court ruling on the admissibility of evidence. ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113 .) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying defendant’s motion to exclude the jailhouse informants’ testimony. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1989Defendant refers to remarks the court made in the course of the Faretta motion, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , with emphasis on the following: "You have been given a lawyer. 1989Defendant refers to remarks the court made in the course of the Faretta motion, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , with emphasis on the following: “You have been given a lawyer. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.