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 2006–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chandler v. Millergreen2 sentences2010When such ‘special needs’—concerns other than crime detection—are alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. ... ‘In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion.’ ” (Chandler v. Miller (1997) 5 2010When such ‘special needs’—concerns other than crime detection—are alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. ... ‘In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion.’ ” (Chandler v. Miller (1997) 5 | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. City of Charlestongreen2 sentences2006(See Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001) 532 U.S. 67, 75, fn. 7 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 205 , 121 S.Ct. 1281 ].) Under this approach, “particularized exceptions to the main rule [requiring individualized suspicion of wrongdoing] are sometimes warranted based on ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.’ [Citation.] When such ‘special needs’—concerns other than crime detection—are alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. [Citation.] . 2006(See Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001) 532 U.S. 67, 75, fn. 7 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 205 , 121 S.Ct. 1281 ].) Under this approach, “particularized exceptions to the main rule [requiring individualized suspicion of wrongdoing] are sometimes warranted based on ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.’ [Citation.] When such ‘special needs’—concerns other than crime detection—are alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. [Citation.] . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. Combs
green
2 sentences2021Instead, we read Martinez as requiring us to apply the “suffer or permit to work” test in its broad, literal sense: “We see no reason to refrain from giving [the ‘suffer or permit to work’] definition of ‘employ’ its historical meaning.” (Martinez, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 69 .) We therefore decline to apply the ABC test. 3. 2021Instead, we read Martinez as requiring us to apply the “suffer or permit to work” test in its broad, literal sense: “We see no reason to refrain from giving [the ‘suffer or permit to work’] definition of ‘employ’ its historical meaning.” (Martinez, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 69 .) We therefore decline to apply the ABC test. 3. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
A.H. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024(A.H., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1059 .) As explained by one court, “Detriment is a familiar standard in child welfare determinations; but . . . the notion of detriment is at best a nebulous standard that depends on the context of the inquiry.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490 .) Under this context-specific standard, Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, subdivision (a) gives dependency courts “broad discretion to evaluate not only the child’s physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being.” (In re C.C., at p. 1490.) 3 C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re CC
green
1 sentence2024(A.H., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1059 .) As explained by one court, “Detriment is a familiar standard in child welfare determinations; but . . . the notion of detriment is at best a nebulous standard that depends on the context of the inquiry.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490 .) Under this context-specific standard, Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, subdivision (a) gives dependency courts “broad discretion to evaluate not only the child’s physical safety but also his or her emotional well-being.” (In re C.C., at p. 1490.) 3 C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2023As our Supreme Court recognized in Hill, the foundational case on claims for invasion of privacy, “[e]ven when a legally cognizable privacy interest is present, other factors may affect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 36 .) Whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable in any given circumstance is a context-specific inquiry, and “‘[t]he protection afforded to the plaintiff’s interest in his [or her] privacy 14 must be relative to the customs of the time and place, to the occupation of the plaintiff[,] and to the habits of his [or her] neighbors an | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
green
1 sentence2023As our Supreme Court recognized in Hill, the foundational case on claims for invasion of privacy, “[e]ven when a legally cognizable privacy interest is present, other factors may affect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 36 .) Whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable in any given circumstance is a context-specific inquiry, and “‘[t]he protection afforded to the plaintiff’s interest in his [or her] privacy 14 must be relative to the customs of the time and place, to the occupation of the plaintiff[,] and to the habits of his [or her] neighbors an | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
green
2 sentences2010(Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton (1995) 515 U.S. 646 [ 132 L.Ed.2d 564 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 ] (Vernonia)-, Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. 2010(Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton (1995) 515 U.S. 646 [ 132 L.Ed.2d 564 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 ] (Vernonia)-, Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.