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 1997–2023 1 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. McKimgreen1 sentence2023(People v. McKim (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 766, 768, fn. 1 .) 4 Officer Vanzant testified that Officer Saenz activated his emergency lights, but he could not remember whether this occurred before or after discovering that the Honda’s registration was expired. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2013Physical intrusiveness We begin by noting that the typical modern DNA collection procedure─the buccal swab to which Lowe was subjected in this matter─is much less invasive than the blood test approved in Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. 757 . 2013Physical intrusiveness We begin by noting that the typical modern DNA collection procedure─the buccal swab to which Lowe was subjected in this matter─is much less invasive than the blood test approved in Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. 757 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
green
2 sentences2006Lowe’s reasons for proposing a large store and rejecting a smaller store “cannot be determinative of [the smaller store’s] feasibility.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736 .) The City was obligated to “independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.” {Ibid.) And the EIR, or some other document in the administrative record, should have “explained] in meaningful detail ... the basis for” the alleged infeasibility of the reduced-size alternative. {Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Californi 2006Lowe’s reasons for proposing a large store and rejecting a smaller store “cannot be determinative of [the smaller store’s] feasibility.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736 .) The City was obligated to “independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.” {Ibid.) And the EIR, or some other document in the administrative record, should have “explained] in meaningful detail ... the basis for” the alleged infeasibility of the reduced-size alternative. {Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Californi | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California
green
2 sentences2006Lowe’s reasons for proposing a large store and rejecting a smaller store “cannot be determinative of [the smaller store’s] feasibility.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736 .) The City was obligated to “independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.” {Ibid.) And the EIR, or some other document in the administrative record, should have “explained] in meaningful detail ... the basis for” the alleged infeasibility of the reduced-size alternative. {Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Californi 2006Lowe’s reasons for proposing a large store and rejecting a smaller store “cannot be determinative of [the smaller store’s] feasibility.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736 .) The City was obligated to “independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.” {Ibid.) And the EIR, or some other document in the administrative record, should have “explained] in meaningful detail ... the basis for” the alleged infeasibility of the reduced-size alternative. {Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Californi | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2003In support of their motion, Parris and Lopez relied on Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 867 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 773 ] (Atari), which held precertification communication with potential class members is appropriate, with prior court approval, in the absence of a showing of actual or threatened abuse of the class action process. 2003In support of their motion, Parris and Lopez relied on Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 867 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 773 ] (Atari), which held precertification communication with potential class members is appropriate, with prior court approval, in the absence of a showing of actual or threatened abuse of the class action process. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Geiger
red
1 sentence1997(People v. Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 531-532.) 2. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.