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 1915–2025 4 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. Simongreen2 sentences2025(Cf. People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1104 [explaining that without a forfeiture rule, a defendant might purposefully “ ‘delay[] the raising of the claim in the hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction’ ”], quoting Davis v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 233, 241 .) Nor did Sullivan raise his discrimination concerns in the trial court once the RJA was enacted. 2025(Cf. People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1104 [explaining that without a forfeiture rule, a defendant might purposefully “ ‘delay[] the raising of the claim in the hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction’ ”], quoting Davis v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 233, 241 .) Nor did Sullivan raise his discrimination concerns in the trial court once the RJA was enacted. | 2 | 4 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025(Cf. People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1104 [explaining that without a forfeiture rule, a defendant might purposefully “ ‘delay[] the raising of the claim in the hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction’ ”], quoting Davis v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 233, 241 .) Nor did Sullivan raise his discrimination concerns in the trial court once the RJA was enacted. 2025(Cf. People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1104 [explaining that without a forfeiture rule, a defendant might purposefully “ ‘delay[] the raising of the claim in the hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction’ ”], quoting Davis v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 233, 241 .) Nor did Sullivan raise his discrimination concerns in the trial court once the RJA was enacted. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2001(Accord, People v. Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 556, fn. 7 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ] [claim that jury panel is not representative of community is waived if not timely asserted]; People v. Laster (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 381, 387 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [claim that venue should have been changed in light of prejudicial pretrial publicity is forfeited if not timely asserted]; People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 44 , 383 P.2d 452 ] [constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial deemed waived if not asserted in timely fashion].) 15 Moreover, contrary to the positio 2001(Accord, People v. Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 556, fn. 7 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ] [claim that jury panel is not representative of community is waived if not timely asserted]; People v. Laster (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 381, 387 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [claim that venue should have been changed in light of prejudicial pretrial publicity is forfeited if not timely asserted]; People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 44 , 383 P.2d 452 ] [constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial deemed waived if not asserted in timely fashion].) 15 Moreover, contrary to the positio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lastergreen2 sentences2001(Accord, People v. Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 556, fn. 7 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ] [claim that jury panel is not representative of community is waived if not timely asserted]; People v. Laster (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 381, 387 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [claim that venue should have been changed in light of prejudicial pretrial publicity is forfeited if not timely asserted]; People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 44 , 383 P.2d 452 ] [constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial deemed waived if not asserted in timely fashion].) 15 Moreover, contrary to the positio 2001(Accord, People v. Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 556, fn. 7 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ] [claim that jury panel is not representative of community is waived if not timely asserted]; People v. Laster (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 381, 387 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [claim that venue should have been changed in light of prejudicial pretrial publicity is forfeited if not timely asserted]; People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 44 , 383 P.2d 452 ] [constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial deemed waived if not asserted in timely fashion].) 15 Moreover, contrary to the positio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2001(Accord, People v. Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 556, fn. 7 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ] [claim that jury panel is not representative of community is waived if not timely asserted]; People v. Laster (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 381, 387 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [claim that venue should have been changed in light of prejudicial pretrial publicity is forfeited if not timely asserted]; People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 44 , 383 P.2d 452 ] [constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial deemed waived if not asserted in timely fashion].) 15 Moreover, contrary to the positio 2001(Accord, People v. Jones (1973) 9 Cal.3d 546, 556, fn. 7 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 510 P.2d 705 ] [claim that jury panel is not representative of community is waived if not timely asserted]; People v. Laster (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 381, 387 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [claim that venue should have been changed in light of prejudicial pretrial publicity is forfeited if not timely asserted]; People v. Wilson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 44 , 383 P.2d 452 ] [constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial deemed waived if not asserted in timely fashion].) 15 Moreover, contrary to the positio | 1 | 1 |
Morton v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1962The appellate court stated that “ [i] t may be that a judicial review would suggest some modifications under certain circumstances but our system has not conferred upon the court the power to exercise these administrative functions.” (P. 797.) The opinion acknowledges that the administrative remedy (i.e., to grant an exception or variance) is not a bar to the raising of the defense of unconstitutionality in an action by the city to enforce the ordinance " [b]ut, when the ordinance has afforded such a remedy [which was not pursued], it is a complete answer to all that is said by respondent [own 1962The appellate court stated that “ [i] t may be that a judicial review would suggest some modifications under certain circumstances but our system has not conferred upon the court the power to exercise these administrative functions.” (P. 797.) The opinion acknowledges that the administrative remedy (i.e., to grant an exception or variance) is not a bar to the raising of the defense of unconstitutionality in an action by the city to enforce the ordinance " [b]ut, when the ordinance has afforded such a remedy [which was not pursued], it is a complete answer to all that is said by respondent [own | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Isaac & Rebecca Thomas v. Gates
green
2 sentences1915So far, at least, as the physicians are concerned, the instruction given is in conflict with the views expressed in Thomas v. Gates, 126 Cal. 1 , [ 58 Pac. 315 ], where it is said, in effect, that the raising of a presumption against a party for the failure to introduce *115 or to permit the introduction of testimony which he had the right to exclude as privileged, would go far toward destroying the value of the privilege. 1915So far, at least, as the physicians are concerned, the instruction given is in conflict with the views expressed in Thomas v. Gates, 126 Cal. 1 , [ 58 Pac. 315 ], where it is said, in effect, that the raising of a presumption against a party for the failure to introduce *115 or to permit the introduction of testimony which he had the right to exclude as privileged, would go far toward destroying the value of the privilege. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.