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 1995–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Christina P.green2 sentences1995Rather, the question is whether the complexity of the issues to be resolved and the capacity of the parent to obtain a fair hearing without counsel impel the appointment. ( Ibid. ) The Lassiter rule was summarized in In re Christina P. (1985) 175 Cal. App.3d 115, 129 [ 220 Cal. Rptr. 525 ], as follows: "In Lassiter ... the United States Supreme Court held that a federal constitutional due process right to appointment of counsel for parents at a [section] 232 hearing on termination of parental rights is a question for case-by-case resolution. 1995Rather, the question is whether the complexity of the issues to be resolved and the capacity of the parent to obtain a fair hearing without counsel impel the appointment. ( Ibid. ) The Lassiter rule was summarized in In re Christina P. (1985) 175 Cal. App.3d 115, 129 [ 220 Cal. Rptr. 525 ], as follows: "In Lassiter ... the United States Supreme Court held that a federal constitutional due process right to appointment of counsel for parents at a [section] 232 hearing on termination of parental rights is a question for case-by-case resolution. | 2 | 2 |
Sacramento County Department of Social Welfare v. Sharon L.green2 sentences1995The federal due process right is dependent upon the complexity of issues likely to be presented and the likelihood that assistance of counsel for the parent might sway the outcome." (Fn. omitted; see also In re Justin L. (1987) 188 Cal. App.3d 1068, 1073 [ 233 Cal. Rptr. 632 ] ["There is no federal constitutional right per se to be represented by counsel in all parental termination proceedings"].) [3] (3) Assuming, therefore, that there may be termination proceedings the complexity of which demand appointment of counsel on due process grounds, can it be said that this case falls within the gro 1995The federal due process right is dependent upon the complexity of issues likely to be presented and the likelihood that assistance of counsel for the parent might sway the outcome." (Fn. omitted; see also In re Justin L. (1987) 188 Cal. App.3d 1068, 1073 [ 233 Cal. Rptr. 632 ] ["There is no federal constitutional right per se to be represented by counsel in all parental termination proceedings"].) [3] (3) Assuming, therefore, that there may be termination proceedings the complexity of which demand appointment of counsel on due process grounds, can it be said that this case falls within the gro | 2 | 2 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.green2 sentences1999We therefore adopt the standard found appropriate in Gagnon v. Scarpelli , and leave the decision whether due process calls for the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings to be answered in the first instance by the trial court, subject, of course, to appellate review. [Citation.]” ( Lassiter, supra, 452 U.S. at pp. 31-32 [ 101 S.Ct. at p. 2162 ].) Petitioners urge this court to disregard the general rule and thus to ignore the second prong of the Lassiter test. 1999We therefore adopt the standard found appropriate in Gagnon v. Scarpelli , and leave the decision whether due process calls for the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings to be answered in the first instance by the trial court, subject, of course, to appellate review. [Citation.]” ( Lassiter, supra, 452 U.S. at pp. 31-32 [ 101 S.Ct. at p. 2162 ].) Petitioners urge this court to disregard the general rule and thus to ignore the second prong of the Lassiter test. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tilbury
green
2 sentences2023Instead, ‘ “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” ’ ” (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54 Cal.3d 56, 68 .) “[W]e evaluate and balance these three elements in order to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures for fundamental fairness: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the state’s interests involved; and (3) the risk that the absence of the procedures in question will lead to an erroneous resolution of 12 PEOPLE v. DELGADILLO Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the 2022Instead, ‘ “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” ’ ” (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54 Cal.3d 56, 68 .) “[W]e evaluate and balance these three elements in order to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures for fundamental fairness: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the state’s interests involved; and (3) the risk that the absence of the procedures in question will lead to an erroneous resolution of 12 PEOPLE v. DELGADILLO Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the | 2 | 2022–2023 |
In Re Sade C.
green
2 sentences2023Instead, ‘ “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” ’ ” (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54 Cal.3d 56, 68 .) “[W]e evaluate and balance these three elements in order to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures for fundamental fairness: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the state’s interests involved; and (3) the risk that the absence of the procedures in question will lead to an erroneous resolution of 12 PEOPLE v. DELGADILLO Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the 2022Instead, ‘ “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” ’ ” (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54 Cal.3d 56, 68 .) “[W]e evaluate and balance these three elements in order to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures for fundamental fairness: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the state’s interests involved; and (3) the risk that the absence of the procedures in question will lead to an erroneous resolution of 12 PEOPLE v. DELGADILLO Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2023Instead, ‘ “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” ’ ” (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54 Cal.3d 56, 68 .) “[W]e evaluate and balance these three elements in order to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures for fundamental fairness: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the state’s interests involved; and (3) the risk that the absence of the procedures in question will lead to an erroneous resolution of 12 PEOPLE v. DELGADILLO Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the 2022Instead, ‘ “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” ’ ” (People v. Tilbury (1991) 54 Cal.3d 56, 68 .) “[W]e evaluate and balance these three elements in order to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause requires Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures for fundamental fairness: (1) the private interests at stake; (2) the state’s interests involved; and (3) the risk that the absence of the procedures in question will lead to an erroneous resolution of 12 PEOPLE v. DELGADILLO Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Salas v. Cortez
green
2 sentences1998The three decisions are: Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 593 P.2d 226 ]; County of Orange v. Dabbs (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ]; and County of Ventura v. Tillet (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 741 ]. 1998The three decisions are: Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 593 P.2d 226 ]; County of Orange v. Dabbs (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ]; and County of Ventura v. Tillet (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 741 ]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
County of Orange v. Dabbs
green
2 sentences1998The three decisions are: Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 593 P.2d 226 ]; County of Orange v. Dabbs (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ]; and County of Ventura v. Tillet (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 741 ]. 1998The three decisions are: Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 593 P.2d 226 ]; County of Orange v. Dabbs (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ]; and County of Ventura v. Tillet (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 741 ]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
County of Ventura v. Tillett
green
2 sentences1998The three decisions are: Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 593 P.2d 226 ]; County of Orange v. Dabbs (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ]; and County of Ventura v. Tillet (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 741 ]. 1998The three decisions are: Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 529 , 593 P.2d 226 ]; County of Orange v. Dabbs (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 999 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ]; and County of Ventura v. Tillet (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 741 ]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.