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 1988–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Robbinsgreen2 sentences2013The Supreme Court also has long recognized “habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that ‘was not created for the purpose of defeating or embarrassing justice, but to promote it’ [citation] . . . .” (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 777-778 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153 , 959 P.2d 311 ].) Indeed, habeas corpus is not a proper remedy where other adequate remedies exist, such as an appeal or other available procedures for challenging the confinement. ( Gandolfo, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 898-899.) In Gandolfo, the Supreme Court held a habeas corpus petition was not an appropriate means to challenge an 2013The Supreme Court also has long recognized “habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that ‘was not created for the purpose of defeating or embarrassing justice, but to promote it’ [citation] . . . .” (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 777-778 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153 , 959 P.2d 311 ].) Indeed, habeas corpus is not a proper remedy where other adequate remedies exist, such as an appeal or other available procedures for challenging the confinement. ( Gandolfo, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 898-899.) In Gandolfo, the Supreme Court held a habeas corpus petition was not an appropriate means to challenge an | 1 | 2 |
San Diego Department of Social Services v. Mooregreen2 sentences2010Moore determined that not only did the combination of these procedures provide “constitutionally sound safeguards against error,” but they affirmatively “welcomed and encouraged [the conservatee’s] participation in the conservatorship decision.” (Moore, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 730 .) Moreover, by ensuring that counsel would inform the court of any nonopposition to the proposed reestablishment, the procedures allowed the conservatee “to avoid a potentially uncomfortable and disruptive court appearance which, in light of his nonopposition to reestablishment, would have likely been brief and 1988A hearing (and/or court or jury trial upon request) must be held on all petitions (§§ 53 50, 53 62, 5365 4 ; Conservatorship of Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 718, 729-730 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 875 ]), where the conservatee may challenge the validity of the physicians’ opinions by calling them as witnesses. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Superior Court (Martin)green2 sentences1991The question, therefore, is not whether a lawyer in a particular circumstance "may" or "might" or "could" be tempted to do something improper, but whether the likelihood of such a transgression, in the eye of a reasonable observer, is of sufficient magnitude that the arrangement or representation ought to be forbidden categorically.'" ( Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 232 Cal. App.3d at p. 1444 .) (3b) In light of these guidelines, we next examine the extent to which a conservatee may claim an attorney-client relationship with the counsel for his or her conservator, and 1991The question, therefore, is not whether a lawyer in a particular circumstance "may" or "might" or "could" be tempted to do something improper, but whether the likelihood of such a transgression, in the eye of a reasonable observer, is of sufficient magnitude that the arrangement or representation ought to be forbidden categorically.'" ( Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 232 Cal. App.3d at p. 1444 .) (3b) In light of these guidelines, we next examine the extent to which a conservatee may claim an attorney-client relationship with the counsel for his or her conservator, and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Gandolfo
green
2 sentences2013The Supreme Court also has long recognized “habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that ‘was not created for the purpose of defeating or embarrassing justice, but to promote it’ [citation.] . . . .” (In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, 777-778 .) Indeed, habeas corpus is not a proper remedy where other adequate remedies exist, such as an appeal or other available procedures for challenging the confinement. ( Gandolfo, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 898-899.) In Gandolfo, the Supreme Court held a habeas corpus petition was not an appropriate means to challenge an LPS conservatee’s confinement in a 2010(Moore, at p. 730; cf. In re Gandolfo, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 899-900 [habeas corpus available only in extraordinary circumstances where the statutory procedures are shown to be inadequate and to result in unreasonable consequences greatly detrimental to conservatee].) In a passage that speaks to the situation here, Moore emphasized the significance of a conservatee’s representation by counsel in determining the validity of the conservatee’s waiver of a hearing or trial: “ ‘When counsel is present, a voluntary and intelligent waiver of known rights may properly be inferred from the record, wi | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Castro v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences1991The question, therefore, is not whether a lawyer in a particular circumstance "may" or "might" or "could" be tempted to do something improper, but whether the likelihood of such a transgression, in the eye of a reasonable observer, is of sufficient magnitude that the arrangement or representation ought to be forbidden categorically.'" ( Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 232 Cal. App.3d at p. 1444 .) (3b) In light of these guidelines, we next examine the extent to which a conservatee may claim an attorney-client relationship with the counsel for his or her conservator, and 1991The question, therefore, is not whether a lawyer in a particular circumstance “may” or “might” or “could” be tempted to do something improper, but whether the likelihood of such a transgression, in the eye of a reasonable observer, is of sufficient magnitude that the arrangement or representation ought to be forbidden categorically.’ ” (Castro v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 1444 .) In light of these guidelines, we next examine the extent to which a conservatee may claim an attorney-client relationship with the counsel for his or her conservator, and a con | 2 | 1991–1991 |