Murray rule in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2025 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Jogani v. Superior Courtgreen calctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Rather, unjust enrichment is a basis for obtaining restitution based on quasi-contract or imposition of a constructive trust.” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1490 ; Jogani v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 901, 911 [“unjust enrichment is not a cause of action. [Citation.] Rather, it is a general principle underlying various doctrines and remedies, including quasi-contract”].) Because Flannery did not, and could not, state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the trial court properly dismissed 20 this purported cause of action pursuant to the grant of	1	1
People v. Johnsongreen calctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.411(a)-(c); People v. Johnson (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1431-1433 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 423 ].) Murray does not show on appeal how the trial court abused that discretion, and we therefore hold that no error occurred. 12 As to the second point, as we have already discussed, despite the error about the nature and effect of Murray’s plea, the trial court in fact properly exercised its sentencing discretion. 2012(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.411(a)-(c); People v. Johnson (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1431-1433 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 423 ].) Murray does not show on appeal how the trial court abused that discretion, and we therefore hold that no error occurred. 12 As to the second point, as we have already discussed, despite the error about the nature and effect of Murray’s plea, the trial court in fact properly exercised its sentencing discretion.	1	1
People v. Evansgreen cal · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012However, that section requires sworn testimony (People v. Evans (2008) 44 Cal.4th 590, 598-599 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 174 , 187 P.3d 1010 ]), something Murray’s defense counsel did not offer to provide. 2012However, that section requires sworn testimony (People v. Evans (2008) 44 Cal.4th 590, 598-599 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 174 , 187 P.3d 1010 ]), something Murray’s defense counsel did not offer to provide.	1	1
People v. Beltrangreen calctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012(People v. Beltran (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 693, 697-698, fn. 5 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 730 ].) We reject Murray’s claim of disproportionality under the California Constitution for the same reasons. 2. 2012(People v. Beltran (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 693, 697-698, fn. 5 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 730 ].) We reject Murray’s claim of disproportionality under the California Constitution for the same reasons. 2.	1	1
United States v. Vespegreen ded · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979Remedio's interception in this case comes within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule...." (United States v. Vespe (D.Del. 1975) 389 F. Supp. 1359, 1372 [affd. sub nom. 1979Remedio's interception in this case comes within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule...." (United States v. Vespe (D.Del. 1975) 389 F. Supp. 1359, 1372 [affd. sub nom.	1	1
United States v. John A. McGuire Edmond G. Blumner and Herbert Perrygreen ca2 · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979McGuire’s interception [i.e., “recording. . .of his telephone conversations”] in this case would seem to come within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule,.. .” (United States v. McGuire (2d Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 306, 315 [cert. den., 389 U.S. 1053 ( 19 L.Ed.2d 848 , 88 S.Ct. 800 )].) “[T]he Murray case was distinguished in a later Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 208 Pa.Super. 513 , 224 A.2d 91 (1966), on the ground that Murray did not involve the interception by a subscriber on his own line. 1979McGuire’s interception [i.e., “recording. . .of his telephone conversations”] in this case would seem to come within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule,.. .” (United States v. McGuire (2d Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 306, 315 [cert. den., 389 U.S. 1053 ( 19 L.Ed.2d 848 , 88 S.Ct. 800 )].) “[T]he Murray case was distinguished in a later Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 208 Pa.Super. 513 , 224 A.2d 91 (1966), on the ground that Murray did not involve the interception by a subscriber on his own line.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Scott green cal · 1994 1 sentence 2025Forfeiture Forfeiture is typically recognized on “claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 .) Arguably, by failing to object on this ground in the trial court, Murray forfeited her claim that the trial court’s articulation of the basis for its imposition of the upper term was erroneous to the extent the court relied on the status of the victim as being particularly vulnerable.	1	2025–2025
McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc. green calctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2020Rather, unjust enrichment is a basis for obtaining restitution based on quasi-contract or imposition of a constructive trust.” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1490 ; Jogani v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 901, 911 [“unjust enrichment is not a cause of action. [Citation.] Rather, it is a general principle underlying various doctrines and remedies, including quasi-contract”].) Because Flannery did not, and could not, state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the trial court properly dismissed 20 this purported cause of action pursuant to the grant of	1	2020–2020
People v. Gutierrez green cal · 2014 1 sentence 2015(Id. at pp. 289–290, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 , 1370– 1371.) The court of appeal found the denial proper under section 1204, because “that section requires sworn testimony [citation], something Murray’s defense counsel did not offer to provide.	1	2015–2015
People v. Davis green cal · 1981 1 sentence 1994(People v. Davis, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 828 .) Thus, we agree that statutory language supports Murray’s claim.	1	1994–1994
United States v. Albert Martin Shaffer, Jr., A/K/A \Monk\" green · 1975 2 sentences 1979United States v. Shaffer (1975) 520 F.2d 1369 , cert. den., 423 U.S. 1051 ].) "[I]n Murray , a third party (private detective) listened to the conversation on the telephone extension. 1979United States v. Shaffer (1975) 520 F.2d 1369 , cert. den., 423 U.S. 1051 ].) "[I]n Murray , a third party (private detective) listened to the conversation on the telephone extension.	1	1979–1979
Phillips v. Alabama green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1979McGuire’s interception [i.e., “recording. . .of his telephone conversations”] in this case would seem to come within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule,.. .” (United States v. McGuire (2d Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 306, 315 [cert. den., 389 U.S. 1053 ( 19 L.Ed.2d 848 , 88 S.Ct. 800 )].) “[T]he Murray case was distinguished in a later Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 208 Pa.Super. 513 , 224 A.2d 91 (1966), on the ground that Murray did not involve the interception by a subscriber on his own line. 1979McGuire’s interception [i.e., “recording. . .of his telephone conversations”] in this case would seem to come within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule,.. .” (United States v. McGuire (2d Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 306, 315 [cert. den., 389 U.S. 1053 ( 19 L.Ed.2d 848 , 88 S.Ct. 800 )].) “[T]he Murray case was distinguished in a later Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 208 Pa.Super. 513 , 224 A.2d 91 (1966), on the ground that Murray did not involve the interception by a subscriber on his own line.	1	1979–1979
Local 1104, Communications Workers v. National Labor Relations Board green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1979United States v. Shaffer (1975) 520 F.2d 1369 , cert. den., 423 U.S. 1051 ].) "[I]n Murray , a third party (private detective) listened to the conversation on the telephone extension. 1979United States v. Shaffer (1975) 520 F.2d 1369 , cert. den., 423 U.S. 1051 ].) "[I]n Murray , a third party (private detective) listened to the conversation on the telephone extension.	1	1979–1979
Commonwealth v. Goldberg green pasuperct · 1966 2 sentences 1979McGuire’s interception [i.e., “recording. . .of his telephone conversations”] in this case would seem to come within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule,.. .” (United States v. McGuire (2d Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 306, 315 [cert. den., 389 U.S. 1053 ( 19 L.Ed.2d 848 , 88 S.Ct. 800 )].) “[T]he Murray case was distinguished in a later Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 208 Pa.Super. 513 , 224 A.2d 91 (1966), on the ground that Murray did not involve the interception by a subscriber on his own line. 1979McGuire’s interception [i.e., “recording. . .of his telephone conversations”] in this case would seem to come within the Goldberg rather than the Murray rule,.. .” (United States v. McGuire (2d Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 306, 315 [cert. den., 389 U.S. 1053 ( 19 L.Ed.2d 848 , 88 S.Ct. 800 )].) “[T]he Murray case was distinguished in a later Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 208 Pa.Super. 513 , 224 A.2d 91 (1966), on the ground that Murray did not involve the interception by a subscriber on his own line.	1	1979–1979

Where else courts name it

PA 17 (1997–2023) MS 12 (1987–2007) OH 9 (1989–2025) FL 8 (1994–2025) TX 7 (1980–2024) CA 6 (1979–2025) UT 6 (2004–2023) MA 5 (1989–2019) NY 4 (1992–2021) GA 4 (2000–2018) IN 4 (2002–2019) LA 4 (1987–2017) IL 4 (2008–2023) WI 4 (2002–2024) DE 3 (1995–2026) MO 3 (1991–2005) TN 3 (1998–2016) MD 3 (2005–2012) MT 2 (1993–2007) AR 2 (2003–2012) VA 2 (1985–2026) HI 2 (2017–2017) CO 2 (2002–2019) AL 2 (1999–2005) KS 2 (2015–2015) VT 2 (2006–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check