6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Woodell
green
2 sentences2014In these circumstances, the recitation of these facts in the opinion on defendant’s direct appeal are probative of the facts underlying the conviction. ( Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 460, 461.) The trial court thus properly found defendant ineligible for resentencing. 2014In these circumstances, the recitation of these facts in the opinion on defendant’s direct appeal are probative of the facts underlying the conviction. ( Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 460, 461.) The trial court thus properly found defendant ineligible for resentencing. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Castorena
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Castorena (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1066 .) That did not occur here, as the court failed to make any inquiry into the factual basis for Juror 12’s purported bias. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bonzi v. People ex rel. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
green
1 sentence2018(Ibid.)” (Estate of Bonzi (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1106 .) As the facts relevant to analysis of this issue in this case are undisputed, we determine the matter de novo. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
GALLANIS-POLITIS v. Medina
green
1 sentence2014(See Gallanis-Politis v. Medina (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 600, 608 .) In any event, Dr. Weinstein admitted in his trial testimony that the challenged opinion was not disclosed in his deposition or at any time prior to trial, despite his promise to do so. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Mower
green
2 sentences2013The court reasoned that the facts relevant to the defense, including that the person qualified as a “ ‘patient’ ” or “ ‘primary caregiver’ ” and cultivated or possessed marijuana “ ‘for the personal medical purposes of [a] patient’ ” upon a physician’s recommendation, all lay “peculiarly within a defendant’s personal knowledge, and proof of their nonexistence by the prosecution would be relatively difficult or inconvenient.” (Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 477 .) The Supreme Court also found the CUA constituted an exception to statutes criminalizing the cultivation and possession of marijuana, 2013The court reasoned that the facts relevant to the defense, including that the person qualified as a “ ‘patient’ ” or “ ‘primary caregiver’ ” and cultivated or possessed marijuana “ ‘for the personal medical purposes of [a] patient’ ” upon a physician’s recommendation, all lay “peculiarly within a defendant’s personal knowledge, and proof of their nonexistence by the prosecution would be relatively difficult or inconvenient.” (Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 477 .) The Supreme Court also found the CUA constituted an exception to statutes criminalizing the cultivation and possession of marijuana, | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.