6 California opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Riggsgreen1 sentence2021(People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 292 [to the extent the defendant’s constitutional claim was “merely a gloss on the objection raised at trial,” it is without merit because the trial court did not abuse its 26 To the extent Foster argues in his reply brief that “the evidence was not admissible on the grounds for which it was admitted,” we can, as mentioned earlier, affirm on any basis in the record. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Covarrubiasgreen1 sentence2021(See People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 876-877 [where the instructions given were otherwise correct, the failure to request amplification, clarification, or modification forfeits the claim on appeal].) Our determination that CALCRIM No. 600 was not likely to have misled the jury necessarily disposes of Foster’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek any further amplification. | 1 | 1 |
Parthemore v. Colgreen1 sentence2021(State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1239–1240.) Despite other administrative remedies that may be available, prisoners have an independent “obligation to comply with the Government Claims Act.” (Parthemore v. Col (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1382 (Parthemore).) Accordingly, we consider whether the Government Claims Act applies to Foster’s claim for the return of his personal property or its value and, as a result, compliance with the act’s claim presentation requirements must be pleaded. | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Maigreen1 sentence2021(See People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 [to prevail on a claim 32 of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show it is reasonably probable that he would have achieved a more favorable result but for counsel’s omission or inaction].) IV. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021(State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1239–1240.) Despite other administrative remedies that may be available, prisoners have an independent “obligation to comply with the Government Claims Act.” (Parthemore v. Col (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1382 (Parthemore).) Accordingly, we consider whether the Government Claims Act applies to Foster’s claim for the return of his personal property or its value and, as a result, compliance with the act’s claim presentation requirements must be pleaded. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
cluster 673865
green
1 sentence2008We also question the trial court’s assumption in this case that a generic manufacturer has “no risk” regarding the product, a premise that Foster itself undermines with its holding that generic manufacturers adopt a name-brand manufacturer’s warnings and representations at their own risk and are equally responsible for their accuracy. ( Foster, supra, 29 F.3d at pp. 170-171.) In sum, we think the policy factors identified and considered in Foster’s analysis of the duty question tell less than the full story, and we depart from Foster in declining to find on the limited record before us that th | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Kaaienapua
green
2 sentences1980On the other hand, when observations are made from a position to which the officer has not been expressly or implicitly invited, the intrusion is unlawful unless executed pursuant to a warrant or one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement.” A more recent and even more compelling authority is the case of People v. Kaaienapua (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 283 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 651 ]. 1980On the other hand, when observations are made from a position to which the officer has not been expressly or implicitly invited, the intrusion is unlawful unless executed pursuant to a warrant or one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement.” A more recent and even more compelling authority is the case of People v. Kaaienapua (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 283 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 651 ]. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1969"The existing authorities in California support the view that declaratory relief would not be available to a party in these circumstances which could not maintain a quo warranto action in its own name." ( 56 Cal.2d at p. 715 .) The complaint alleges that $30,000,000 of the district's funds was "spent to improve and make saleable the real property of [the Foster defendants] under the claim that said expenditure is authorized as reclamation...." In his capacity as a district taxpayer appellant prayed for a judgment requiring restoration of that amount to the district. [6] Appellant contends here | 1 | 1969–1969 |
People v. Douglas
green
2 sentences1967The statement in the Odom case that a conflict of interest appears when one of two defendants has a prior felony conviction stems from People v. Douglas, 61 Cal.2d 430 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 884 , 392 P.2d 964 ], There defendant A had a record of prior felony convictions while defendant B did not. 1967The statement in the Odom case that a conflict of interest appears when one of two defendants has a prior felony conviction stems from People v. Douglas, 61 Cal.2d 430 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 884 , 392 P.2d 964 ], There defendant A had a record of prior felony convictions while defendant B did not. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.