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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roper v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2022(Roper v. Simmons, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 574 [age 18 is the appropriate cutoff for death penalty sentence eligibility].) California courts have similarly held that a mandatory LWOP sentence imposed on offenders 18 years of age and older does not violate article I, section 17 of the California Constitution. 2022(Roper v. Simmons, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 574 [age 18 is the appropriate cutoff for death penalty sentence eligibility].) California courts have similarly held that a mandatory LWOP sentence imposed on offenders 18 years of age and older does not violate article I, section 17 of the California Constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Oakland Raiders v. National Football Leaguegreen1 sentence2025Proc., § 657, subd. (1); see Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 633 .) A trial court assessing a claim of juror misconduct just as real . . . whether [plaintiff] learned of the actions immediately (by, say, walking in on a viewing), days later, or decades later”].) Likewise, the City’s reliance on cases involving claims based on harassing conduct outside the plaintiff’s presence and directed at third parties is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productionsgreen2 sentences2025(See, e.g., Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 289 [plaintiff barred from relying on offensive comments she was unaware of about other women to support her own claim for sexual harassment].) 25 must follow a three-step process: (1) determine whether the affidavits in support of the motion are admissible; (2) if admissible, determine whether the facts establish misconduct; and (3) assuming misconduct, determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial. 2025(See, e.g., Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 289 [plaintiff barred from relying on offensive comments she was unaware of about other women to support her own claim for sexual harassment].) 25 must follow a three-step process: (1) determine whether the affidavits in support of the motion are admissible; (2) if admissible, determine whether the facts establish misconduct; and (3) assuming misconduct, determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) The standard for assessing defense counsel’s performance is “highly deferential.” (Id. at 4 For example, a law enforcement witness testified that during an interview about the fire and B.D.’s death, Dingman and Alicia appeared to be “work[ing] through” what they were going to say, and that Dingman had referred to B.D. as “that fucking kid” and had “chuckled” when discussing with the detective “how hot the fire was burning inside the crib.” Additionally, neighbors testified that Dingman would get frustrated with B.D. and that 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2024Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution provides: “Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.” A court assessing a claim of cruel or unusual punishment must “decide whether the penalty given ‘is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity,’ thereby violating the prohibition . . . against cruel or unusual punishment of article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1042 ; In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 2022A court assessing a claim of cruel and unusual punishment must “decide whether the penalty given ‘is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience 86 and offends fundamental notions of human dignity,’ thereby violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment of the federal Constitution or against cruel or unusual punishment of article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1042 .) A defendant “‘“attacking his sentence as cruel or unusual must demonstrate his puni | 3 | 2022–2024 |
People v. West
green
1 sentence2024Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution provides: “Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.” A court assessing a claim of cruel or unusual punishment must “decide whether the penalty given ‘is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity,’ thereby violating the prohibition . . . against cruel or unusual punishment of article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1042 ; In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Cartwright
green
1 sentence2024(Lynch, at pp. 425–429.) “First, [it] examined the nature of the offense and the offender. [Citation.] Second, [it] compared the punishment with the penalty for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. [Citation.] Third, [it] compared the punishment to the penalty for the same offense in different jurisdictions. [Citation.]” (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1136 .) “ ‘ “Whether a punishment is cruel or unusual is a question of law for the appellate court, but the underlying disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment. [Citations.]” [Citation. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Wingo
green
1 sentence2024(Lynch, at pp. 425–429.) “First, [it] examined the nature of the offense and the offender. [Citation.] Second, [it] compared the punishment with the penalty for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. [Citation.] Third, [it] compared the punishment to the penalty for the same offense in different jurisdictions. [Citation.]” (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1136 .) “ ‘ “Whether a punishment is cruel or unusual is a question of law for the appellate court, but the underlying disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment. [Citations.]” [Citation. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Lynch
red
1 sentence2024Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution provides: “Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.” A court assessing a claim of cruel or unusual punishment must “decide whether the penalty given ‘is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity,’ thereby violating the prohibition . . . against cruel or unusual punishment of article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1042 ; In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Abundio
green
1 sentence2024(Lynch, at pp. 425–429.) “First, [it] examined the nature of the offense and the offender. [Citation.] Second, [it] compared the punishment with the penalty for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. [Citation.] Third, [it] compared the punishment to the penalty for the same offense in different jurisdictions. [Citation.]” (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1136 .) “ ‘ “Whether a punishment is cruel or unusual is a question of law for the appellate court, but the underlying disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment. [Citations.]” [Citation. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mathews v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences1983Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719, 738-739 , [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 301 , 493 P.2d 1165 ] as follows: “[T]he Constitution does not require uniform treatment, only a reasonable basis for legislative classification. [Citation.] It is the duty of the Legislature to determine whether the facts justify such a classification and the burden of the challenger to show that the legislative conclusion is arbitrary. [Citation.] As we said in Sacramento M. 1983Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 719, 738-739 , [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 301 , 493 P.2d 1165 ] as follows: “[T]he Constitution does not require uniform treatment, only a reasonable basis for legislative classification. [Citation.] It is the duty of the Legislature to determine whether the facts justify such a classification and the burden of the challenger to show that the legislative conclusion is arbitrary. [Citation.] As we said in Sacramento M. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.