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 2 courts 1981–2025 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. Sivongxxaygreen1 sentence2020(Ibid.) “In this context, evidence is substantial when it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, and the trial court’s finding of a reasonable doubt must appear on the record.” (Ibid.) A knowing jury waiver “requires an appreciation of the nature of the jury trial right and the consequences of forgoing this right.” (People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 171 (Sivongxxay), italics omitted.) Competence to make the decision, however, requires only the “capacity” to 8 comprehend it (Tran, supra, 61 Cal.4th at 1167 ); it does not require | 1 | 1 |
Greenfield v. Mathergreen2 sentences1995The state would remain bound, and no other person would have occasion to challenge the precedent." ( Id. at p. 64.) We observed, however, that "`when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed. [Citations.]'" ( Ibid., italics added; see also Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ] [recognizing public interest exception to res judicata].) Applying that rule to the facts before us, we concluded: "Yet the consequences of any 1995The state would remain bound, and no other person would have occasion to challenge the precedent." ( Id. at p. 64.) We observed, however, that "`when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed. [Citations.]'" ( Ibid., italics added; see also Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ] [recognizing public interest exception to res judicata].) Applying that rule to the facts before us, we concluded: "Yet the consequences of any | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Palmdale Hospital Medical Center v. Department of Health Services
green
1 sentence2025(City of Sacramento, at pp. 64-65.) Similarly, in Palmdale Hospital Medical Center v. Department of Health Services (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1309-1311 , the appellate court held that a prior unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeal did not bar the Department from challenging a trial court’s ruling concerning the finality of its determination of reimbursement owed to the hospitals for Medi-Cal services. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Tran
green
1 sentence2020(Ibid.) “In this context, evidence is substantial when it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, and the trial court’s finding of a reasonable doubt must appear on the record.” (Ibid.) A knowing jury waiver “requires an appreciation of the nature of the jury trial right and the consequences of forgoing this right.” (People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 171 (Sivongxxay), italics omitted.) Competence to make the decision, however, requires only the “capacity” to 8 comprehend it (Tran, supra, 61 Cal.4th at 1167 ); it does not require | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Arcadia Unified School District v. State Department of Education
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at p. 65.) In Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 825 P.2d 438 ], the Supreme Court applied the public interest exception to permit a second lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of a state statute permitting school districts to charge students for transportation. 2015(Id. at p. 65.) In Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 825 P.2d 438 ], the Supreme Court applied the public interest exception to permit a second lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of a state statute permitting school districts to charge students for transportation. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Sacramento v. State of California
green
1 sentence1997If the result of Sacramento I is wrong but unimpeachable, taxpayers statewide will suffer unjustly the consequences of the state’s continuing obligation to fund the chapter 2/78 costs of local agencies. . . .” (Sacramento II, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 64 , original italics.) *396 The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that res judicata applied. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Douglas
green
2 sentences1981Since Noday was inadequately apprised of the right to separate counsel and the consequences of any waiver of that right, his waiver should be held to be ineffective. ( People v. Douglas, supra, 61 Cal.2d 430, 435 .) Under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar, an attorney may not represent conflicting interests without the written, informed consent of all concerned parties (rule 5-102(B), Rules Prof. 1981(People v. Douglas, supra, 61 Cal.2d 430, 435 .) Under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar, an attorney may not represent conflicting interests without the written, informed consent of all concerned parties (rule 5-102(B), Rules Prof. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.