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 2002–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Elizabeth M.green1 sentence2015(See In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 [upholding the decision of the court made shortly before a section 366.26 hearing to deny a mother's section 388 petition seeking a change of placement of her child from a foster family to the mother's cousin and his wife because the cousin had only met the child once and because the child had lived with her foster family for half of her life, had a strong bond to them and they had indicated their desire to provide the child a permanent home].) We thus conclude there was no abuse of discretion or violation of due process arising from the c | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clevelandgreen2 sentences2002(People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 480 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 , 21 P.3d 1225 ].) In any event, we note that the majority of federal courts hold that a claimant need only produce evidence establishing a colorable claim, a standard which seems to us to be in tension with the resolution of the issue at a full-blown evidentiary hearing intended to resolve disputed facts. 2002(People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 480 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 , 21 P.3d 1225 ].) In any event, we note that the majority of federal courts hold that a claimant need only produce evidence establishing a colorable claim, a standard which seems to us to be in tension with the resolution of the issue at a full-blown evidentiary hearing intended to resolve disputed facts. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Forfeiture, Stop Six Centergreen1 sentence2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cambio Exacto, S.A.green1 sentence2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant | 1 | 1 |
United States v. $9,041,598.68green1 sentence2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant | 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. Zarazua
green
2 sentences2014(Id. at p. 484.) In these circumstances, judicial economy is best served by allowing defendant to seek relief by simple motion—even if it is treated as a habeas corpus petition (see People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1060-1063 ; People v. Byron, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th 657, 666 )—rather than insisting on the cumbersome procedures attending a formal petition for relief in habeas corpus and a full-blown evidentiary hearing. 2014(Id. at p. 484.) In these circumstances, judicial economy is best served by allowing defendant to seek relief by simple motion—even if it is treated as a habeas corpus petition (see People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1060-1063 ; People v. Byron, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th 657, 666 )—rather than insisting on the cumbersome procedures attending a formal petition for relief in habeas corpus and a full-blown evidentiary hearing. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Byron
green
2 sentences2014(Id. at p. 484.) In these circumstances, judicial economy is best served by allowing defendant to seek relief by simple motion—even if it is treated as a habeas corpus petition (see People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1060-1063 ; People v. Byron, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th 657, 666 )—rather than insisting on the cumbersome procedures attending a formal petition for relief in habeas corpus and a full-blown evidentiary hearing. 2014(Id. at p. 484.) In these circumstances, judicial economy is best served by allowing defendant to seek relief by simple motion—even if it is treated as a habeas corpus petition (see People v. Zarazua (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1060-1063 ; People v. Byron, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th 657, 666 )—rather than insisting on the cumbersome procedures attending a formal petition for relief in habeas corpus and a full-blown evidentiary hearing. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Skelly v. State Personnel Board
green
1 sentence2015Constitutional Challenges A. Skelly claim Before a permanent public employee can be subjected to more than “minor disciplin[e],” he or she has a right to certain procedural safeguards prior to the “initial taking of punitive action.” (Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 215 .) Unlike the full-blown evidentiary hearing that must generally precede final disciplinary action (ibid.), the safeguards that precede initial action need only “include [(1)] notice of the proposed [disciplinary] action, [and] the reasons therefor, [(2)] a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and [( | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. County of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2015(Ibid.; Williams v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 22 Cal.3d 731, 736-737 ; Bollinger v. San Diego Civil Serv. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Pizarro
green
2 sentences2002"On July 6, 1990, [defendant] filed his notice of appeal." ( Pizarro I, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 60-61, [ 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 436 ].) On appeal, we remanded to the trial court for a full-blown evidentiary hearing to determine the general scientific acceptance of the FBI's DNA profiling procedure and the FBI's Hispanic database. ( Pizarro I, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 95-96, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 .) On March 19, 1998, after a hearing conducted in 1994 and 1995, the trial court found the procedure and the database generally accepted and the evidence admissible. 2002"On July 6, 1990, [defendant] filed his notice of appeal." ( Pizarro I, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 60-61, [ 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 436 ].) On appeal, we remanded to the trial court for a full-blown evidentiary hearing to determine the general scientific acceptance of the FBI's DNA profiling procedure and the FBI's Hispanic database. ( Pizarro I, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 95-96, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 .) On March 19, 1998, after a hearing conducted in 1994 and 1995, the trial court found the procedure and the database generally accepted and the evidence admissible. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property
green
1 sentence2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In Re Seizure of $82,000 More or Less
neutral
1 sentence2002(E.g., U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property (1st Cir. 1991) 942 F.2d 74 , 78 [to satisfy standing requirement, all “that needs to be shown is a ‘facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and “prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the court” ’ [Citations.]”]; U.S. v. Cambio Exacto, S.A., supra, 166 F.3d at p. 527 [‘“[A]n allegation of ownership and some evidence of ownership are together sufficient to establish standing to contest a civil forfeiture’ ”]; U.S. v. $9,041,598.68, supra, 163 F.3d at p. 245 [claimant | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.