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 2018–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reilly v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018But we will begin with an overview of the statutory framework of the SVPA, which was well described by our Supreme Court in Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641, 646-648 (Reilly): “The Welfare and Institutions Code outlines the procedure for determining whether a person is an SVP. (§ 6600 et seq.) Under section 6601, whenever the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) determines that a person may be an SVP, the secretary refers that person to the Department and the Board of Parole Hearings for an initial screening. (§ 6601, subds. (a)(1), (b).) In 2018But we will begin with an overview of the statutory framework of the SVPA, which was well described by our Supreme Court in *786 Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641 , 646-648, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 410 , 304 P.3d 1071 ( Reilly ): "The Welfare and Institutions Code outlines the procedure for determining whether a person is an SVP. ( § 6600 et seq. ) Under section 6601, whenever the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) determines that a person may be an SVP, the secretary refers that person to the Department and the Board of Parole Hearings for an initi | 2 | 3 |
Fremont Union High School District v. Santa Clara County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2018Dist. v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Education (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1182 , 1187, 286 Cal.Rptr. 915 ["[e]xpulsion is an administrative penalty designed to promote student safety"].) We provide an overview of the statutory framework governing student disciplinary proceedings in public schools, relying upon a decision of the Fourth District, Division One (with updates for statutory revisions). 2018Dist. v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Education (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1182 , 1187, 286 Cal.Rptr. 915 ["[e]xpulsion is an administrative penalty designed to promote student safety"].) We provide an overview of the statutory framework governing student disciplinary proceedings in public schools, relying upon a decision of the Fourth District, Division One (with updates for statutory revisions). | 1 | 2 |
Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosagreen1 sentence2022The Act “was enacted ‘to encourage “planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space [and agricultural] lands within those patterns” [citation], and to discourage urban sprawl and encourage “the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.” ’ [Citation.] A LAFCO is the administrative body within each county that oversees urban development.” (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1323-1324 .) In section 56001, | 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. Ollo
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Ollo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 682, 687 .) A. We begin with an overview of the statutory framework. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission
green
1 sentence2022The Act “was enacted ‘to encourage “planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space [and agricultural] lands within those patterns” [citation], and to discourage urban sprawl and encourage “the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances.” ’ [Citation.] A LAFCO is the administrative body within each county that oversees urban development.” (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1323-1324 .) In section 56001, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.