delinquency hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

delinquency hearing in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2014 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re WINSHIPgreen
scotus · 1970 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014(In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 368 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 377-378 ].) “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we apply the familiar substantial evidence rule.

2014(In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 368 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 377-378 ].) “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we apply the familiar substantial evidence rule.

22
People v. Overstreetgreen
cal · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012The court reasoned: “This is not a case where criminal activity simply highlights a situation that results in removal from the home for reasons in the home; rather, the offenses appellant committed here placed him squarely and unavoidably within the delinquency exception of the ICWA.” (Id. at p. 734.) More to the point, the court observed that the minor’s interpretation of former Rule 1439 was in direct conflict with the federal statute on which it was based, “which is an untenable result.” (In re Enrique O., at p. 734.) Accordingly, the court refused to “interpret the California Rules of Cour

2012The court reasoned: “This is not a case where criminal activity simply highlights a situation that results in removal from the home for reasons in the home; rather, the offenses appellant committed here placed him squarely and unavoidably within the delinquency exception of the ICWA.” (Id. at p. 734.) More to the point, the court observed that the minor’s interpretation of former Rule 1439 was in direct conflict with the federal statute on which it was based, “which is an untenable result.” (In re Enrique O., at p. 734.) Accordingly, the court refused to “interpret the California Rules of Cour

11
Breed v. Jonesgreen
scotus · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984(Breed v. Jones (1975) 421 U.S. 519, 526, 541 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 346, 362 , 95 S.Ct. 1779 ], citing Jones v. Breed (9th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 1160 , 1165.) 8 In Breed, the California juvenile court had conducted a delinquency hearing at which the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor had committed the robbery alleged in the petition.

1984(Breed v. Jones (1975) 421 U.S. 519, 526, 541 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 346, 362 , 95 S.Ct. 1779 ], citing Jones v. Breed (9th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 1160 , 1165.) 8 In Breed, the California juvenile court had conducted a delinquency hearing at which the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor had committed the robbery alleged in the petition.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Urbasek green
ill · 1967
2 sentences

1969(See In re Urbasek, 38 Ill.2d 535 [ 232 N.E.2d 716 ]; Santana v. State (Texas Civ.

1969(See In re Urbasek, 38 Ill.2d 535 [ 232 N.E.2d 716 ]; Santana v. State (Texas Civ.

21969–1969
Jones v. Breed green
ca9 · 1974
1 sentence

1984(Breed v. Jones (1975) 421 U.S. 519, 526, 541 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 346, 362 , 95 S.Ct. 1779 ], citing Jones v. Breed (9th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 1160 , 1165.) 8 In Breed, the California juvenile court had conducted a delinquency hearing at which the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor had committed the robbery alleged in the petition.

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

AL 10 (1926–2011) IL 9 (1977–2001) TX 9 (1978–2013) GA 8 (1998–2010) WI 7 (1981–2022) PA 6 (1972–2018) OH 6 (1969–2020) CA 6 (1969–2014) IN 4 (1974–2020) FL 4 (1969–2015) OK 3 (1974–1985) SD 3 (1997–1999) OR 3 (1970–1995) WA 3 (1968–1978) NY 3 (1978–2020) MD 2 (1974–1975) LA 2 (1980–1996) MS 2 (1968–1973) DC 2 (2014–2014) UT 2 (2001–2001) RI 2 (1976–2008) MN 2 (2002–2002) AK 2 (1974–2003) NM 2 (1943–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check