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 2 courts 1928–2026 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. Leahygreen2 sentences2024(See People v. Leahy, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 609 [“testimony by police officers regarding the mere administration of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly”].) Thus, we hold that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence the 14 testimony of the Irvine police officer regarding the results of the TruNarc test. 2001WU'S TESTIMONY REGARDING PROTSMAN'S PET SCAN BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION UNDER THE KELLY TEST Where expert testimony is based on the application of a new scientific technique, its proponent must demonstrate that the method employed is reliable—that is, the particular technique or test must have gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. ( Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ; see also People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 611-612 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 .) The trial court's ruling on this issue is subject to | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shirleygreen2 sentences1994(See, e.g., People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 525-528 [tissue sample analysis]; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 238-239 [ 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [hair comparison analysis]; People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 1152-1161 [standardized personality tests]; People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 245-251 [ 203 Cal. Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] [rape trauma syndrome]; People v. Shirley, supra, 31 Cal.3d 18, 51-54 [hypnotically induced testimony].) Additionally, we observe that the Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Evidence Code provisions to abrogate or 1994(See, e.g., People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 525-528 [tissue sample analysis]; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 238-239 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [hair comparison analysis]; People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 1152-1161 [standardized personality tests]; People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 245-251 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] [rape trauma syndrome]; People v. Shirley, supra, 31 Cal.3d 18, 51-54 [hypnotically induced testimony].) Additionally, we observe that the Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Evidence Code provisions to abrogate or mo | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bledsoegreen2 sentences1994(See, e.g., People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 525-528 [tissue sample analysis]; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 238-239 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [hair comparison analysis]; People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 1152-1161 [standardized personality tests]; People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 245-251 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] [rape trauma syndrome]; People v. Shirley, supra, 31 Cal.3d 18, 51-54 [hypnotically induced testimony].) Additionally, we observe that the Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Evidence Code provisions to abrogate or mo 1994(See, e.g., People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 525-528 [tissue sample analysis]; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 238-239 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [hair comparison analysis]; People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 1152-1161 [standardized personality tests]; People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 245-251 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] [rape trauma syndrome]; People v. Shirley, supra, 31 Cal.3d 18, 51-54 [hypnotically induced testimony].) Additionally, we observe that the Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Evidence Code provisions to abrogate or mo | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ashmusgreen2 sentences2001WU'S TESTIMONY REGARDING PROTSMAN'S PET SCAN BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION UNDER THE KELLY TEST Where expert testimony is based on the application of a new scientific technique, its proponent must demonstrate that the method employed is reliable—that is, the particular technique or test must have gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. ( Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ; see also People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 611-612 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 .) The trial court's ruling on this issue is subject to 2001WU'S TESTIMONY REGARDING PROTSMAN'S PET SCAN BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION UNDER THE KELLY TEST Where expert testimony is based on the application of a new scientific technique, its proponent must demonstrate that the method employed is reliable—that is, the particular technique or test must have gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. ( Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ; see also People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 611-612 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 .) The trial court's ruling on this issue is subject to | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pridegreen2 sentences1994(See, e.g., People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 525-528 [tissue sample analysis]; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 238-239 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [hair comparison analysis]; People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 1152-1161 [standardized personality tests]; People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 245-251 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] [rape trauma syndrome]; People v. Shirley, supra, 31 Cal.3d 18, 51-54 [hypnotically induced testimony].) Additionally, we observe that the Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Evidence Code provisions to abrogate or mo 1994(See, e.g., People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 525-528 [tissue sample analysis]; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 238-239 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ] [hair comparison analysis]; People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 1152-1161 [standardized personality tests]; People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236, 245-251 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] [rape trauma syndrome]; People v. Shirley, supra, 31 Cal.3d 18, 51-54 [hypnotically induced testimony].) Additionally, we observe that the Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Evidence Code provisions to abrogate or mo | 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. Kelly
yellow
2 sentences2001WU'S TESTIMONY REGARDING PROTSMAN'S PET SCAN BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION UNDER THE KELLY TEST Where expert testimony is based on the application of a new scientific technique, its proponent must demonstrate that the method employed is reliable—that is, the particular technique or test must have gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. ( Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ; see also People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 611-612 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 .) The trial court's ruling on this issue is subject to 2001WU'S TESTIMONY REGARDING PROTSMAN'S PET SCAN BECAUSE THIS EVIDENCE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION UNDER THE KELLY TEST Where expert testimony is based on the application of a new scientific technique, its proponent must demonstrate that the method employed is reliable—that is, the particular technique or test must have gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. ( Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ; see also People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 611-612 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 .) The trial court's ruling on this issue is subject to | 2 | 1994–2001 |
People v. Allen
green
2 sentences2026The court then cited Allen, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 1093 , as establishing STR testing’s general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. 2026The court then cited Allen, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 1093 , as establishing STR testing’s general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Buening
green
2 sentences1994The People urge, however, that we take judicial notice of the various decisions (e.g., Blake, supra, 718 P.2d at pp. 179-181; People v. Buening (1992) 229 Ill.App.3d 538 [ 170 Ill.Dec. 542 , 592 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 ]; State v. Garrett, supra, 811 P.2d at pp. 490-493; State v. Hill (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) 865 S.W.2d 702, 704-705 ) and published studies concluding that HGN testing meets the Frye standard. 1994The People urge, however, that we take judicial notice of the various decisions (e.g., Blake, supra, 718 P.2d at pp. 179-181; People v. Buening (1992) 229 Ill.App.3d 538 [ 170 Ill.Dec. 542 , 592 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 ]; State v. Garrett, supra, 811 P.2d at pp. 490-493; State v. Hill (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) 865 S.W.2d 702, 704-705 ) and published studies concluding that HGN testing meets the Frye standard. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence1994The People urge, however, that we take judicial notice of the various decisions (e.g., Blake, supra, 718 P.2d at pp. 179-181; People v. Buening (1992) 229 Ill.App.3d 538 [ 170 Ill.Dec. 542 , 592 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 ]; State v. Garrett, supra, 811 P.2d at pp. 490-493; State v. Hill (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) 865 S.W.2d 702, 704-705 ) and published studies concluding that HGN testing meets the Frye standard. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. McDonald
green
2 sentences1988(People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 , 46 A.L.R.4th 1011 ].) Which particular evidence is deemed “scientific” and therefore subject to the general acceptance test is frequently disputed. 6 However, the Kelly-Frye rule is “deeply ingrained” and applies not only to the more obvious polygraph, voiceprint, and blood-typing techniques but also to scientific processes based on purely psychological evidence. 1988(People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 , 46 A.L.R.4th 1011 ].) Which particular evidence is deemed “scientific” and therefore subject to the general acceptance test is frequently disputed. 6 However, the Kelly-Frye rule is “deeply ingrained” and applies not only to the more obvious polygraph, voiceprint, and blood-typing techniques but also to scientific processes based on purely psychological evidence. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McGinn v. Interstate National Bank
neutral
2 sentences1928In McGinn v. Inter-State National Bank, 178 Mo. App. 347 [ 166 S. W. 345 ], the reason for the rule as to independent liability defeating a right of interpleader is explained to be that where such liability exists a decision as to which of the conflicting claimants was right would not absolve the party asking interpleader from performing his independent contract. 1928In McGinn v. Inter-State National Bank, 178 Mo. App. 347 [ 166 S. W. 345 ], the reason for the rule as to independent liability defeating a right of interpleader is explained to be that where such liability exists a decision as to which of the conflicting claimants was right would not absolve the party asking interpleader from performing his independent contract. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.