6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2024–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harger v. Structural Services, Inc.green2 sentences2025(See, e.g., Harger v. Structural Servs., Inc. (1996) 121 N.M. 657, 667 [ 916 P.2d 1234 , 1334] [“ ‘Every case presents its own combination of facts, from which the resultant must be arrived at. 2025(See, e.g., Harger v. Structural Servs., Inc. (1996) 121 N.M. 657, 667 [ 916 P.2d 1234 , 1334] [“ ‘Every case presents its own combination of facts, from which the resultant must be arrived at. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 435 .) 2 In an aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element is a conjunctive test with two requirements: “aggravated kidnapping requires movement of the victim that [1] is not merely incidental to the commission of the underlying crime and [2] that increases the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the underlying crime itself.” (People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 232 (Martinez), italics added, overruled on other grounds in People v. Fontenot (2019) 8 Cal.5th 57, 70 .) By contrast, in a simple kidnapping, the 2024Thus, in a case where the evidence permitted, the jury might properly consider not only the actual distance the victim is moved, but also such factors as whether that movement increased the risk of harm above that which existed prior to the asportation, decreased the likelihood of detection, and increased both the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.’” (People v. Perkins (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 454, 465 , italics added, quoting Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 237 .) Here, the trial court instructed the | 1 | 2 |
People v. Pridegreen1 sentence2024In deciding whether the distance was substantial, you must consider all the circumstances relating to the movement. [¶] Thus, in addition to considering the actual distance moved, you may also consider other factors such as whether the distance the other person was moved was beyond that merely incidental to the commission of Home Invasion Robbery[,] [w]hether the movement increased the risk of physical or psychological harm, increased the danger of a 3 foreseeable escape attempt, or gave the attacker a greater opportunity to 1 commit additional crimes, or decreased the likelihood of detection. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations
green
2 sentences2025L. 295 , 335 [“However courts state the test of employee status, they routinely concede its failure to produce predictable results for many workers whose status is ambiguous”].) Some inconsistency may be inevitable given that the common law test is a multi-factored test, and case law teaches, “ ‘the individual factors cannot be applied mechanically as separate tests; they are intertwined and their weight depends often on particular combinations.’ ” (Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 351 .) Thus, even a slight change in the facts can lead to different results. 2025L. 295 , 335 [“However courts state the test of employee status, they routinely concede its failure to produce predictable results for many workers whose status is ambiguous”].) Some inconsistency may be inevitable given that the common law test is a multi-factored test, and case law teaches, “ ‘the individual factors cannot be applied mechanically as separate tests; they are intertwined and their weight depends often on particular combinations.’ ” (Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 351 .) Thus, even a slight change in the facts can lead to different results. | 4 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2024Thus, in a case where the evidence permitted, the jury might properly consider not only the actual distance the victim is moved, but also such factors as whether that movement increased the risk of harm above that which existed prior to the asportation, decreased the likelihood of detection, and increased both the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.’” (People v. Perkins (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 454, 465 , italics added, quoting Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 237 .) Here, the trial court instructed the 2024Lexis 550 [p. 48].) The majority failed to consider a number of factors for simple kidnapping required by our Supreme Court, including that “ ‘the jury might properly consider [1] not only the actual distance the victim is moved, but 12 also such factors as [2] whether that movement increased the risk of harm above that which existed prior to the asportation, [3] decreased the likelihood of detection, and [4] increased both the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape and [5] the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.’ ” (People v. Perkins (2016) 5 Cal | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Bell
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 435 .) 2 In an aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element is a conjunctive test with two requirements: “aggravated kidnapping requires movement of the victim that [1] is not merely incidental to the commission of the underlying crime and [2] that increases the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the underlying crime itself.” (People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 232 (Martinez), italics added, overruled on other grounds in People v. Fontenot (2019) 8 Cal.5th 57, 70 .) By contrast, in a simple kidnapping, the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Fontenot
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 435 .) 2 In an aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element is a conjunctive test with two requirements: “aggravated kidnapping requires movement of the victim that [1] is not merely incidental to the commission of the underlying crime and [2] that increases the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the underlying crime itself.” (People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 232 (Martinez), italics added, overruled on other grounds in People v. Fontenot (2019) 8 Cal.5th 57, 70 .) By contrast, in a simple kidnapping, the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.