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 1 courts 1991–2026 1 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. Lopezgreen1 sentence2026(See Eddy, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 482; see also In re Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 377 , 390 [no McCoy error when defendant objected to concession of guilt during closing argument because “it cannot be said that at the time counsel made the concession, it was over petitioner’s intransigent and unambiguous objection”]; People v. Lopez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 55, 66 [“we have found no authority . . . allowing extension of McCoy’s holding to a situation where the defendant does not expressly disagree with a decision relating to his right to control the objective of his defense”].) Instead, Petr | 1 | 1 |
Forte v. Schiebegreen1 sentence2016The court's mistaken reference to 5 (See, e.g., Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001, 1002-1006 [court had ex parte contact with defense counsel, allowed him to repeatedly hum the Twilight Zone theme song when cross-examining plaintiff, used a penalty card scoring system to respond to objections (over plaintiff's counsel's objection) and made the comment " 'aren't they clever' " regarding plaintiff's testimony]; Lewis v. Bill Robertson & Sons, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 650, 655 [court expressed opinion in premises liability case that no premises defect caused the | 1 | 1 |
Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc.green1 sentence2016The court's mistaken reference to 5 (See, e.g., Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001, 1002-1006 [court had ex parte contact with defense counsel, allowed him to repeatedly hum the Twilight Zone theme song when cross-examining plaintiff, used a penalty card scoring system to respond to objections (over plaintiff's counsel's objection) and made the comment " 'aren't they clever' " regarding plaintiff's testimony]; Lewis v. Bill Robertson & Sons, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 650, 655 [court expressed opinion in premises liability case that no premises defect caused the | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Bill Robertson & Sons, Inc.green1 sentence2016The court's mistaken reference to 5 (See, e.g., Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001, 1002-1006 [court had ex parte contact with defense counsel, allowed him to repeatedly hum the Twilight Zone theme song when cross-examining plaintiff, used a penalty card scoring system to respond to objections (over plaintiff's counsel's objection) and made the comment " 'aren't they clever' " regarding plaintiff's testimony]; Lewis v. Bill Robertson & Sons, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 650, 655 [court expressed opinion in premises liability case that no premises defect caused the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hanif v. Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2013Posttrial Motions, Judgments and Appeals On June 24, 2011, Lampkin filed a motion to reduce the compensatory damage awards pursuant to Hanif, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 635 , and Nishihama, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 298 , and pursuant to the trial court‘s pretrial ruling granting Lampkin‘s request to hold a postverdict hearing on such a reduction. 2013Posttrial Motions, Judgments and Appeals On June 24, 2011, Lampkin filed a motion to reduce the compensatory damage awards pursuant to Hanif, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 635 , and Nishihama, *1323 supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 298 , and pursuant to the trial court’s pretrial ruling granting Lampkin’s request to hold a postverdict hearing on such a reduction. | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Nishihama v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences2013Posttrial Motions, Judgments and Appeals On June 24, 2011, Lampkin filed a motion to reduce the compensatory damage awards pursuant to Hanif, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 635 , and Nishihama, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 298 , and pursuant to the trial court‘s pretrial ruling granting Lampkin‘s request to hold a postverdict hearing on such a reduction. 2013Posttrial Motions, Judgments and Appeals On June 24, 2011, Lampkin filed a motion to reduce the compensatory damage awards pursuant to Hanif, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 635 , and Nishihama, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th 298 , and pursuant to the trial court‘s pretrial ruling granting Lampkin‘s request to hold a postverdict hearing on such a reduction. | 3 | 2013–2013 |
McCoy v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence2026(Compare McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at pp. 418–419.) Nor is this case like Eddy, where testimony during a postverdict hearing established that trial counsel had known before closing argument that the defendant disagreed with the strategy of conceding manslaughter as a lesser included offense but did so anyway. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Katiuzhinsky v. Perry
green
2 sentences2008In Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1150 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ], the court held that the defendant had failed to preserve any right to a postverdict hearing by failing to request a verdict form that contained a separate entry for past medical expenses. ( Id. at p. 1158.) In Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1288 , [ 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 309 ], the court distinguished Hanif/Nishihama, holding that it did not apply where the plaintiff's medical lien was sold to a third party. 2008In Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1150 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ], the court held that the defendant had failed to preserve any right to a postverdict hearing by failing to request a verdict form that contained a separate entry for past medical expenses. ( Id. at p. 1158.) In Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1288 , [ 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 309 ], the court distinguished Hanif/Nishihama, holding that it did not apply where the plaintiff's medical lien was sold to a third party. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Greer v. Buzgheia
green
2 sentences2008In Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1150 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ], the court held that the defendant had failed to preserve any right to a postverdict hearing by failing to request a verdict form that contained a separate entry for past medical expenses. 2008In Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1150 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ], the court held that the defendant had failed to preserve any right to a postverdict hearing by failing to request a verdict form that contained a separate entry for past medical expenses. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip
green
2 sentences1991The trial court there had instructed the jury on the purpose of punitive damages, that the making of an award was discretionary, and that the panel “ ‘must take into consideration the character and the degree of the wrong as shown by the evidence and necessity of preventing similar wrong.’ [Citation.]” ( 499 U.S. at p. _ [ 113 L.Ed.2d at p. 20 , 111 S.Ct. at p. 1044 ].) Secondly, the Haslip court noted that on a postverdict challenge to a punitive damage award, trial courts in Alabama are required to reflect on the record their reasons for either approving or disturbing the verdict. 1991The trial court there had instructed the jury on the purpose of punitive damages, that the making of an award was discretionary, and that the panel “ ‘must take into consideration the character and the degree of the wrong as shown by the evidence and necessity of preventing similar wrong.’ [Citation.]” ( 499 U.S. at p. _ [ 113 L.Ed.2d at p. 20 , 111 S.Ct. at p. 1044 ].) Secondly, the Haslip court noted that on a postverdict challenge to a punitive damage award, trial courts in Alabama are required to reflect on the record their reasons for either approving or disturbing the verdict. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.