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 2001–2022 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. Angulogreen2 sentences2022(People v. Angulo (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1361 [“Due process in an SVPA proceeding is satisfied where ‘the defendant has the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story’”]; People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 136, 154 [due process under the SVPA is preserved when the mandated proceedings provide the defendant “the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story”].) IV. 2022(People v. Angulo (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1361 [“Due process in an SVPA proceeding is satisfied where ‘the defendant has the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story’”]; People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 136, 154 [due process under the SVPA is preserved when the mandated proceedings provide the defendant “the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story”].) IV. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2022(People v. Angulo (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1361 [“Due process in an SVPA proceeding is satisfied where ‘the defendant has the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story’”]; People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 136, 154 [due process under the SVPA is preserved when the mandated proceedings provide the defendant “the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story”].) IV. 2022(People v. Angulo (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1361 [“Due process in an SVPA proceeding is satisfied where ‘the defendant has the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story’”]; People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 136, 154 [due process under the SVPA is preserved when the mandated proceedings provide the defendant “the opportunity to thoroughly present his side of the story”].) IV. | 1 | 1 |
LaChance v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2021“The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (Lachance v. Erickson (1998) 522 U.S. 262, 266 [ 139 L.Ed.2d 695 ] (Lachance); see also Allen, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 869 [“ ‘The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” ’ ”].) On balance, the Allen/Otto factors weigh heavily in favor of providing defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. the question of whether a defendant’s denial of compassionate release under section 1170(e) was appealable. 2021“The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (Lachance v. Erickson (1998) 522 U.S. 262, 266 [ 139 L.Ed.2d 695 ] (Lachance); see also Allen, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 869 [“ ‘The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” ’ ”].) On balance, the Allen/Otto factors weigh heavily in favor of providing defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. the question of whether a defendant’s denial of compassionate release under section 1170(e) was appealable. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences2021“The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (Lachance v. Erickson (1998) 522 U.S. 262, 266 [ 139 L.Ed.2d 695 ] (Lachance); see also Allen, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 869 [“ ‘The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” ’ ”].) On balance, the Allen/Otto factors weigh heavily in favor of providing defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. the question of whether a defendant’s denial of compassionate release under section 1170(e) was appealable. 2021“The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (Lachance v. Erickson (1998) 522 U.S. 262, 266 [ 139 L.Ed.2d 695 ] (Lachance); see also Allen, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 869 [“ ‘The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” ’ ”].) On balance, the Allen/Otto factors weigh heavily in favor of providing defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. the question of whether a defendant’s denial of compassionate release under section 1170(e) was appealable. | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Craiggreen2 sentences2007(See, e.g., In re Clifton V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1400 , 1404-1405 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] [recognizing due process right to live testimony in a contested civil proceeding if there is an issue of credibility]; see also Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 845 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 666 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 ] [recognizing that live testimony compels a witness “ ‘to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief’ ”].) After examination of the four Otto factors, we conc 2007(See, e.g., In re Clifton V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1400 , 1404-1405 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] [recognizing due process right to live testimony in a contested civil proceeding if there is an issue of credibility]; see also Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 845 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 666 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 ] [recognizing that live testimony compels a witness “ ‘to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief’ ”].) After examination of the four Otto factors, we conc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2006Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630, “[t]he court may direct the jury in a civil case to enter a particular verdict.” (People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 451, fn. 6 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 21 P.3d 1209 ].) “ ‘ “A directed verdict may be granted, when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it can be said that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the verdict in favor of such party.” ’ [Citation.] ‘The order of the court 2006Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630, “[t]he court may direct the jury in a civil case to enter a particular verdict.” (People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 451, fn. 6 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 21 P.3d 1209 ].) “ ‘ “A directed verdict may be granted, when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it can be said that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the verdict in favor of such party.” ’ [Citation.] ‘The order of the court | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2003(Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 1, 17 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 697 ].) Disposition The order denying Otto’s motion for section 1021.5 attorney’s fees is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. 2003(Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 1, 17 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 697 ].) Disposition The order denying Otto’s motion for section 1021.5 attorney’s fees is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. | 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. McKee
green
2 sentences2022Applying the Otto factors here, first, we conclude there is no question that “the private interests that will be affected by [a civil commitment under the SVPA] are significant limitations on [the defendant’s] liberty, the stigma of being 7 In People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at page 1192 , the California Supreme Court addressed an SVP’s due process interest in having the assistance of an expert witness in the SVP’s effort to petition the trial court under former section 6608 for his or her release from civil commitment. 2022Applying the Otto factors here, first, we conclude there is no question that “the private interests that will be affected by [a civil commitment under the SVPA] are significant limitations on [the defendant’s] liberty, the stigma of being 7 In People v. McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at page 1192 , the California Supreme Court addressed an SVP’s due process interest in having the assistance of an expert witness in the SVP’s effort to petition the trial court under former section 6608 for his or her release from civil commitment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Clifton
green
2 sentences2007(See, e.g., In re Clifton V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1400 , 1404-1405 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] [recognizing due process right to live testimony in a contested civil proceeding if there is an issue of credibility]; see also Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 845 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 666 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 ] [recognizing that live testimony compels a witness “ ‘to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief’ ”].) After examination of the four Otto factors, we conc 2007(See, e.g., In re Clifton V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1400 , 1404-1405 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] [recognizing due process right to live testimony in a contested civil proceeding if there is an issue of credibility]; see also Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 845 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 666 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 ] [recognizing that live testimony compels a witness “ ‘to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief’ ”].) After examination of the four Otto factors, we conc | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Caloca v. County of San Diego
green
1 sentence2001It is enough that the summary of conference “will be considered in future personnel decisions affecting [Otto] and may lead to punitive action.” (Caloca v. County of San Diego, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222 .) The evidence supports Otto’s claim and he was entitled to an administrative appeal of his summary of conference; the trial court should have granted his writ petition. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2001Otto asserts that one can violate Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) by any touching committed with lewd intent. ( People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 451-452 , 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 905 , 903 P.2d 1037 .) Thus, he contends, his no contest plea admits only this conduct, not the substantial sexual conduct described in the presentence report. ( People v. Watts (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 178 , 136 Cal. Rptr. 496 ["Inquiry into the factual basis for the plea ensures that the defendant actually committed a crime at least as serious as the one to which he is willing to plead"].) Our review of the 2001Otto asserts that one can violate Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) by any touching committed with lewd intent. ( People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 451-452 , 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 905 , 903 P.2d 1037 .) Thus, he contends, his no contest plea admits only this conduct, not the substantial sexual conduct described in the presentence report. ( People v. Watts (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 178 , 136 Cal. Rptr. 496 ["Inquiry into the factual basis for the plea ensures that the defendant actually committed a crime at least as serious as the one to which he is willing to plead"].) Our review of the | 1 | 2001–2001 |
City of Los Angeles v. Aalbers
green
1 sentence2001Otto asserts that one can violate Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) by any touching committed with lewd intent. ( People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 451-452 , 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 905 , 903 P.2d 1037 .) Thus, he contends, his no contest plea admits only this conduct, not the substantial sexual conduct described in the presentence report. ( People v. Watts (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 178 , 136 Cal. Rptr. 496 ["Inquiry into the factual basis for the plea ensures that the defendant actually committed a crime at least as serious as the one to which he is willing to plead"].) Our review of the | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Watts
green
1 sentence2001Otto asserts that one can violate Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) by any touching committed with lewd intent. ( People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 451-452 , 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 905 , 903 P.2d 1037 .) Thus, he contends, his no contest plea admits only this conduct, not the substantial sexual conduct described in the presentence report. ( People v. Watts (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 173, 178 , 136 Cal. Rptr. 496 ["Inquiry into the factual basis for the plea ensures that the defendant actually committed a crime at least as serious as the one to which he is willing to plead"].) Our review of the | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.