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 1983–2025 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. Zamoragreen1 sentence2025(People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 99 [“courts enjoy a large measure of discretion in determining the appropriate sanction that should be imposed because of the destruction of discoverable records and evidence”].) E. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stanleygreen1 sentence2023(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [bare assertion of error without authority or argument forfeits issue on appeal].) C Defendant next contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts as evidence of his character. | 1 | 1 |
Leaf v. City of San Mateogreen2 sentences1983City of San Mateo (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398,406-409 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 711 ]; cf. also 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Actions, § 267, pp. 1118-1119.) We decline to declare a late discovery rule for this action for two reasons: First, the record before us contains neither allegation nor basis for inference that the asserted delay in discovering a potential claim for indemnity was reasonable or excusable. 1983City of San Mateo (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398,406-409 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 711 ]; cf. also 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Actions, § 267, pp. 1118-1119.) We decline to declare a late discovery rule for this action for two reasons: First, the record before us contains neither allegation nor basis for inference that the asserted delay in discovering a potential claim for indemnity was reasonable or excusable. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2020It also declined to give the late-discovery instruction to the jury, finding it would not assist it in any productive way to decide the merits of the case. 3 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87 . 6 The court, however, ordered the prosecutor to show defense counsel the portions of the video he intended to play to the jury. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Verdugo
green
1 sentence2015Thus, there is no reasonable probability that defendant could have fared any better had the late discovery instruction been given. ( Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 279-280; People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) 12 Defendant’s other claims of prejudice (e.g., that the defense might have sought a different resolution of the case or presented a different defense) are based on the alleged discovery violation rather than the denial of the jury instruction. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2015Thus, there is no reasonable probability that defendant could have fared any better had the late discovery instruction been given. ( Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 279-280; People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) 12 Defendant’s other claims of prejudice (e.g., that the defense might have sought a different resolution of the case or presented a different defense) are based on the alleged discovery violation rather than the denial of the jury instruction. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara
green
2 sentences2013(Ibid.) 12 The trial court denied the petition. ( 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 483 .) On appeal, in determining when Greyhound’s equitable indemnity cause of action against the governmental entity accrued, thereby triggering the limitation period for presenting a claim to the governmental entity, the Greyhound court began its analysis by recounting the history of the 1981 amendment to section 901 discussed above (Greyhound, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 484 ), and continued its analysis by quoting the Shortstop court’s reasoning for refusing to apply a “late-discovery exception” (Greyhound, supra, at p. 2013(Ibid.) 12 The trial court denied the petition. ( 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 483 .) On appeal, in determining when Greyhound’s equitable indemnity cause of action against the governmental entity accrued, thereby triggering the limitation period for presenting a claim to the governmental entity, the Greyhound court began its analysis by recounting the history of the 1981 amendment to section 901 discussed above (Greyhound, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 484 ), and continued its analysis by quoting the Shortstop court’s reasoning for refusing to apply a “late-discovery exception” (Greyhound, supra, at p. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.