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 1981–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burch v. Georgegreen2 sentences1998(Id, at p. 802.) To reach this conclusion, the court recited the rule of strict construction, but then stated that ‘whether there was a contest “must be gleaned from a consideration of the purpose[s] that the [testator] sought to attain by the provisions of [his or her] will.” ’ (Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th 246, 281 , quoting Estate of Kazian, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 797, 802 .)” (JacobsZorne, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1076-1077.) The Jacobs-Zorne court then rejects the Kazian holding, quoting from Burch v. George . 1996(Id., at p. 802.) To reach this conclusion, the court recited the rule of strict construction, but then stated that “whether there was a contest ‘must be gleaned from a consideration of the purpose[s] that the [testator] sought to attain by the provisions of [his or her] will.’ ” (Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th 246, 281, quoting Estate of Kazian, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 797, 802 .) This “purposes” approach “was flatly rejected [in favor of the rule of strict construction] by the Legislature when it adopted Probate Code section 21304.” (7 Cal.4th at p. 282.) It appears the court in Kazian (as w | 1 | 2 |
Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Floresgreen2 sentences2008(Interinsurance Exchange v. Flores (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 661, 669 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ] (Flores).) The court found that Lint did not intend to cause any injury to Wright; he only wanted to get Wright wet. 2008(Interinsurance Exchange v. Flores (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 661, 669 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ] (Flores).) The court found that Lint did not intend to cause any injury to Wright; he only wanted to get Wright wet. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mattsonred2 sentences1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal 1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal 1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hogangreen2 sentences1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal 1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal | 1 | 1 |
People v. Murtishawgreen2 sentences1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal 1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal | 1 | 1 |
People v. Doziergreen2 sentences1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant contends and respondent concedes that the court erred in calculating defendant’s presentence good time/work time credit. 1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant contends and respondent concedes that the court erred in calculating defendant’s presentence good time/work time credit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant contends and respondent concedes that the court erred in calculating defendant’s presentence good time/work time credit. 1981(People v. Dozier (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 174, 179 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Defendant contends and respondent concedes that the court erred in calculating defendant’s presentence good time/work time credit. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Kazian
green
2 sentences1998(Id, at p. 802.) To reach this conclusion, the court recited the rule of strict construction, but then stated that ‘whether there was a contest “must be gleaned from a consideration of the purpose[s] that the [testator] sought to attain by the provisions of [his or her] will.” ’ (Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th 246, 281 , quoting Estate of Kazian, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 797, 802 .)” (JacobsZorne, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1076-1077.) The Jacobs-Zorne court then rejects the Kazian holding, quoting from Burch v. George . 1996(Id., at p. 802.) To reach this conclusion, the court recited the rule of strict construction, but then stated that “whether there was a contest ‘must be gleaned from a consideration of the purpose[s] that the [testator] sought to attain by the provisions of [his or her] will.’ ” (Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th 246, 281, quoting Estate of Kazian, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 797, 802 .) This “purposes” approach “was flatly rejected [in favor of the rule of strict construction] by the Legislature when it adopted Probate Code section 21304.” (7 Cal.4th at p. 282.) It appears the court in Kazian (as w | 3 | 1994–1998 |
People v. Duarte
green
1 sentence2017In Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pages 610–613, the Court recited the test but reversed the trial court’s decision to admit portions of a statement incriminating the defendant that were not specifically disserving to the declarant’s interest. 7 (section 1240),7 contemporaneous declarations (section 1241),8 and dying declarations (section 1242).9 The assurance of trustworthiness for each is implicit in the elements of the exception, and once those elements have been established there is no overarching reliability test that may be applied to exclude otherwise admissible statements.10 On the other | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jacobs-Zorne v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1998“This ‘purposes’ approach ‘was flatly rejected [in favor of the rule of strict construction] by the Legislature when it adopted Probate Code section 21304.’ ( 7 Cal.4th at p. 282 .)” (Jacobs-Zorne, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077 .) Although the above quote is from the dissenting opinion of Burch v. George ( 7 Cal.4th at p. 282 ), the Jacobs-Zorne court fails to set forth this important context, nor does it explicate that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Burch v. George, 7 Cal.4th at page 255 , quoted Estate of Kazian with approval in a manner directly contrary to the dissenting opinio | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Randall
green
1 sentence1990In People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134 [ 758 P.2d 857 ], the court found defendant made incriminating admissions which were properly admitted at trial. ( Id. at pp. 159-170.) In dicta, however, the court recited the rule that harmless error analysis only applies to improperly admitted admissions, while confessions require automatic reversal. ( Id. at p. 162, fn. 10.) The court did not acknowledge it had questioned the reversible per se rule in Boyer . [4] See People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85, 91 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 278 , 688 P.2d 887 ]; People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 269 [ 193 Cal | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.