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 1944–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Associated Constr. & Eng'g v. WORKERS'COMP. APP. BD.green2 sentences2004Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 829, 842 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 587 P.2d 684 ].) 7 Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a) provides: “The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: [f] (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; [][] (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; ffl (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and [f] (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of per 2004Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 829, 842 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 587 P.2d 684 ].) 7 Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a) provides: “The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: [f] (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; [][] (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; ffl (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and [f] (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of per | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdinegreen2 sentences2003(Cf. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248, 254-255 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 207 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ] [once a prima facie showing of discrimination has been made, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption by producing admissible evidence, sufficient to justify a judgment for the defendant, that its action was taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason].) Finally, the landlord’s motive in withdrawing his property from the rental market is, as the majority opinion points out, irrelevant. 2003(Cf. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248, 254-255 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 207 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ] [once a prima facie showing of discrimination has been made, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption by producing admissible evidence, sufficient to justify a judgment for the defendant, that its action was taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason].) Finally, the landlord’s motive in withdrawing his property from the rental market is, as the majority opinion points out, irrelevant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mastersongreen2 sentences2000The trial court was then required, before proceeding to rule on competency, to consider the report of the regional center director. (§ 1369, subd. (a).) Because there is a presumption of competence to stand trial, and the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence (People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 973 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 884 P.2d 136 ]; § 1369, subd. (f)), the trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements of the statute precluded Roberta from obtaining the necessary evaluation that may have established her incompetence. 2000The trial court was then required, before proceeding to rule on competency, to consider the report of the regional center director. (§ 1369, subd. (a).) Because there is a presumption of competence to stand trial, and the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence (People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 973 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 884 P.2d 136 ]; § 1369, subd. (f)), the trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements of the statute precluded Roberta from obtaining the necessary evaluation that may have established her incompetence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sumstinegreen2 sentences1990(People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal.3d 909, 922-923 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 707 , 687 P.2d 904 ].) To satisfy this burden, a defendant must prove actual denial of his constitutional rights. 1990(People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal.3d 909, 922-923 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 707 , 687 P.2d 904 ].) To satisfy this burden, a defendant must prove actual denial of his constitutional rights. | 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. Hayes
green
2 sentences1992(Id., at pp. 222, 227 [13 L.Ed.2d at pp. 773-774, 776].) The federal courts did not abandon the Swain rule until long after the trial in this case. ( Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 93-98 [90 L.Ed.2d at pp. 85-89].) However, we had already rejected Swain as a matter of state law and held that a trial court must strike the jury if “any of the questioned peremptory challenges” could not be justified. ( Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 282, 283-287, italics added.) Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor’s decision to volunteer reasons for challenging Ms. V. makes the issue cognizable on app 1992Swain created a presumption that peremptory challenges had been properly exercised and permitted a defendant to rebut the presumption, and thus state a federal equal protection claim, only by "show[ing] the prosecutor's systematic use of peremptory challenges ... over a period of time" rather than just in a single case. ( Id., at pp. 222, 227 [13 L.Ed.2d at pp. 773-774, 776].) The federal courts did not abandon the Swain rule until long after the trial in this case. ( Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 93-98 [90 L.Ed.2d at pp. 85-89].) However, we had already rejected Swain as a matter of state la | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Morrison v. California
green
2 sentences1944For illustration it is said, after citing Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 [ 54 S.Ct. 281 , 78 L.Ed. 664 ], "That case designates as the test of permissibility that 'the state shall have proved enough to make it just for the defendant to be required to repel what has been proved with excuse or explanation, or at least that upon a balancing of convenience or of the opportunities for knowledge the shifting of the burden will be found to be an aid to the accuser without subjecting the accused to hardship or oppression.' " (Italics added.) Whatever may have been the test set forth in the Morris 1944For illustration it is said, after citing Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 [ 54 S.Ct. 281 , 78 L.Ed. 664 ], "That case designates as the test of permissibility that 'the state shall have proved enough to make it just for the defendant to be required to repel what has been proved with excuse or explanation, or at least that upon a balancing of convenience or of the opportunities for knowledge the shifting of the burden will be found to be an aid to the accuser without subjecting the accused to hardship or oppression.' " (Italics added.) Whatever may have been the test set forth in the Morris | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.