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 2005–2016 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 SBgreen2 sentences2016(See In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 1161 [“From the affirmative representation that the ICWA did not apply, it is fairly inferable that the social worker did make the necessary inquiry.”]; In re Aaliyah G. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 939, 942 .) Once the Department makes this type of representation, there is “no obligation to make a further or additional inquiry absent any information or suggestion that the child might have Indian heritage.” (In re Aaliyah G., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 942 ; see also In re S.B., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1161 [After the Department asserted ICWA did 2016(See In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 1161 [“From the affirmative representation that the ICWA did not apply, it is fairly inferable that the social worker did make the necessary inquiry.”]; In re Aaliyah G. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 939, 942 .) Once the Department makes this type of representation, there is “no obligation to make a further or additional inquiry absent any information or suggestion that the child might have Indian heritage.” (In re Aaliyah G., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 942 ; see also In re S.B., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1161 [After the Department asserted ICWA did | 2 | 2 |
In Re Aaliyah G.green2 sentences2016(See In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 1161 [“From the affirmative representation that the ICWA did not apply, it is fairly inferable that the social worker did make the necessary inquiry.”]; In re Aaliyah G. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 939, 942 .) Once the Department makes this type of representation, there is “no obligation to make a further or additional inquiry absent any information or suggestion that the child might have Indian heritage.” (In re Aaliyah G., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 942 ; see also In re S.B., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1161 [After the Department asserted ICWA did 2016(See In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 1161 [“From the affirmative representation that the ICWA did not apply, it is fairly inferable that the social worker did make the necessary inquiry.”]; In re Aaliyah G. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 939, 942 .) Once the Department makes this type of representation, there is “no obligation to make a further or additional inquiry absent any information or suggestion that the child might have Indian heritage.” (In re Aaliyah G., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 942 ; see also In re S.B., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1161 [After the Department asserted ICWA did | 1 | 4 |
People v. Abelgreen1 sentence2014(See People v. Abel (2012) 53 Cal.4th 891, 929 [defendant was not “excused from the necessity of making a timely objection or request for admonition” because there was “no reason to assume the court would have been unresponsive to other complaints about the prejudicial nature of the evidence had defendant made a meritorious objection”].) In any event, Alvarado’s reference to an earlier probation and arrest did not deprive Espinosa of a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2014(Cf. People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 858 [defendant forfeited claim by “fail[ing] to request that the trial court admonish the jury to disregard [a] remark” in closing argument]; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 [failure to request admonition after the trial court sustained objections to references to Hitler and Bosnia forfeited claim of misconduct]; People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 822 [failure “to request an admonition” after trial court sustained objection to improper question forfeited claim of error].) There is no indication in the record, or suggestion by Es | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2014(Cf. People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 858 [defendant forfeited claim by “fail[ing] to request that the trial court admonish the jury to disregard [a] remark” in closing argument]; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 [failure to request admonition after the trial court sustained objections to references to Hitler and Bosnia forfeited claim of misconduct]; People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 822 [failure “to request an admonition” after trial court sustained objection to improper question forfeited claim of error].) There is no indication in the record, or suggestion by Es | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pearsongreen1 sentence2014(Cf. People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 858 [defendant forfeited claim by “fail[ing] to request that the trial court admonish the jury to disregard [a] remark” in closing argument]; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 [failure to request admonition after the trial court sustained objections to references to Hitler and Bosnia forfeited claim of misconduct]; People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 822 [failure “to request an admonition” after trial court sustained objection to improper question forfeited claim of error].) There is no indication in the record, or suggestion by Es | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2014(Cf. People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 858 [defendant forfeited claim by “fail[ing] to request that the trial court admonish the jury to disregard [a] remark” in closing argument]; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 [failure to request admonition after the trial court sustained objections to references to Hitler and Bosnia forfeited claim of misconduct]; People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 822 [failure “to request an admonition” after trial court sustained objection to improper question forfeited claim of error].) There is no indication in the record, or suggestion by Es | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re OK
green
2 sentences2005There, the paternal grandmother stated at the section 366.26 hearing that "`the young man may have Indian in him.'" ( In re O.K., supra, at p. 155, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 .) After a careful review of the circumstances that may give a juvenile court reason to believe that a child is an Indian child, the court held that the grandmother's statement "was too vague and speculative to give the juvenile court any reason to believe the minors might be Indian children." ( Id. at p. 157, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 .) We hold that the court had no obligation to make a further or additional inquiry in the absence o 2005There, the paternal grandmother stated at the section 366.26 hearing that "`the young man may have Indian in him.'" ( In re O.K., supra, at p. 155, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 .) After a careful review of the circumstances that may give a juvenile court reason to believe that a child is an Indian child, the court held that the grandmother's statement "was too vague and speculative to give the juvenile court any reason to believe the minors might be Indian children." ( Id. at p. 157, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 .) We hold that the court had no obligation to make a further or additional inquiry in the absence o | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.