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 2000–2021 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. Villatorogreen2 sentences2016(People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, 1168 [" '[W]e are willing to infer an implicit weighing by the trial court on the basis of record indications well short of an express statement' "].) 2. 2014(People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152, 1168 [" '[W]e are willing to infer an implicit weighing by the 7 trial court on the basis of record indications well short of an express statement.' [Citation.]"].) 2. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Bascombgreen2 sentences2021(Id. at pp. 802-803.) In People v. Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th 522 the Supreme Court described factors to “aid [the] analysis” of whether the defendant “exhibited ‘“‘reckless indifference to human life’”’ within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (d).” (Id. at p. 618; see In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667 , 676 [“Banks and Clark clarified the meaning of the special circumstances statute”].) 7 In People v. Bascomb, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th 1077 the court held that the defendant, who planned a robbery, used a gun to subdue the occupants of the apartment he entered, and was 7 under section 117 2021(Id. at pp. 802-803.) In People v. Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th 522 the Supreme Court described factors to “aid [the] analysis” of whether the defendant “exhibited ‘“‘reckless indifference to human life’”’ within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (d).” (Id. at p. 618; see In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667 , 676 [“Banks and Clark clarified the meaning of the special circumstances statute”].) 7 In People v. Bascomb, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th 1077 the court held that the defendant, who planned a robbery, used a gun to subdue the occupants of the apartment he entered, and was 7 under section 117 | 1 | 1 |
Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc.red2 sentences2001On remand the trial court should order defendants to identify, locate, and repay to each former tenant charged liquidated damages the full amount of funds improperly acquired from that tenant, retaining the power to supervise defendants’ efforts, to ensure that all reasonable means are used to comply with the court’s directives.” (Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 138 .) In footnote 18, the Supreme Court described the claim procedure to be used for a representative action under the UCL: “Because an order to disgorge into a fluid recovery fund is not authorized 2001On remand the trial court should order defendants to identify, locate, and repay to each former tenant charged liquidated damages the full amount of funds improperly acquired from that tenant, retaining the power to supervise defendants’ efforts, to ensure that all reasonable means are used to comply with the court’s directives.” (Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 138 .) In footnote 18, the Supreme Court described the claim procedure to be used for a representative action under the UCL: “Because an order to disgorge into a fluid recovery fund is not authorized | 1 | 1 |
Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2000On the contrary, in Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.3d 311 , the Supreme Court described the factors employed in Serrano *41 III as among those “the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar figure.” (Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 322, fn. 12 , italics added.) The Courts of Appeal have been similarly deferential to trial court discretion as to the factors that may be used to increase or decrease the base lodestar figure in a given case. 2000On the contrary, in Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.3d 311 , the Supreme Court described the factors employed in Serrano *41 III as among those “the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar figure.” (Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 322, fn. 12 , italics added.) The Courts of Appeal have been similarly deferential to trial court discretion as to the factors that may be used to increase or decrease the base lodestar figure in a given case. | 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. Falsetta
green
2 sentences2016Relevant case law In People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903 (Falsetta), the Supreme Court described the factors that a trial court should consider in determining whether to exclude evidence of an uncharged offense that is otherwise admissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108, pursuant to Evidence Code section 352: "[T]rial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its l 2016Relevant case law In People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903 (Falsetta), the Supreme Court described the factors that a trial court should consider in determining whether to exclude evidence of an uncharged offense that is otherwise admissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108, pursuant to Evidence Code section 352: "[T]rial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its l | 4 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at pp. 802-803.) In People v. Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th 522 the Supreme Court described factors to “aid [the] analysis” of whether the defendant “exhibited ‘“‘reckless indifference to human life’”’ within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (d).” (Id. at p. 618; see In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667 , 676 [“Banks and Clark clarified the meaning of the special circumstances statute”].) 7 In People v. Bascomb, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th 1077 the court held that the defendant, who planned a robbery, used a gun to subdue the occupants of the apartment he entered, and was 7 under section 117 2021(Id. at pp. 802-803.) In People v. Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th 522 the Supreme Court described factors to “aid [the] analysis” of whether the defendant “exhibited ‘“‘reckless indifference to human life’”’ within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (d).” (Id. at p. 618; see In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667 , 676 [“Banks and Clark clarified the meaning of the special circumstances statute”].) 7 In People v. Bascomb, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th 1077 the court held that the defendant, who planned a robbery, used a gun to subdue the occupants of the apartment he entered, and was 7 under section 117 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bronco Wine Co. v. Frank A. Logoluso Farms
green
1 sentence2001On remand the trial court should order defendants to identify, locate, and repay to each former tenant charged liquidated damages the full amount of funds improperly acquired from that tenant, retaining the power to supervise defendants’ efforts, to ensure that all reasonable means are used to comply with the court’s directives.” (Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 138 .) In footnote 18, the Supreme Court described the claim procedure to be used for a representative action under the UCL: “Because an order to disgorge into a fluid recovery fund is not authorized | 1 | 2001–2001 |
South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
green
1 sentence2001Bank One also cites South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 861 {South Bay Chevrolet) as a case in which a representative action under the UCL was rejected because the claims were not sufficiently uniform. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.