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 1986–2025 4 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 Marriage of Burgessgreen2 sentences2025Under this scheme, ‘the overarching concern is the best interest of the child.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 955 .) Under Family Code section 3040, subdivision (e), the trial court has “the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child” when making initial long-term custody orders.6 (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 31 (Burgess).) To determine a child’s best interest, the court must consider several factors, including “[t]he health, safety, and welfare of the child,” a history of abuse by one parent 2023(In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 31 (Burgess) [discussing former section 3040, subd. (b), renumbered to section 3040, subd. (c) in Stats. 2012, ch. 845, § 1].) To determine the children’s best interest, the court must consider several factors, including “[t]he health, safety, and welfare of the child,” a history of abuse by one parent against a related child or the other parent, and “[t]he nature and amount of contact with both parents,” as well as “any other factors it finds relevant . . . .” (§ 3011, subds. (a), (b)(1), & (c); Burgess, at p. 32.) If the trial court decides to | 2 | 2 |
In re Coleygreen1 sentence2021(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 .) Accordingly, the court’s findings concerning “the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s triggering offense may play a significant role in determining the sentence that is actually 7 imposed upon the defendant under the Three Strikes law.” (In re Coley (2012) 55 Cal.4th 524, 560 (Coley).) While a court must state on the record its reasons for granting a motion to strike a prior conviction, it is not required to explain its reasons for denying such a motion. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Andreengreen2 sentences1986(In re Marriage of Andreen (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 667, 671 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 94 ].) A court must consider several factors in making a spousal support order (Civ. 1986(In re Marriage of Andreen (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 667, 671 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 94 ].) A court must consider several factors in making a spousal support order (Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Brown and Yana
green
1 sentence2025Under this scheme, ‘the overarching concern is the best interest of the child.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 955 .) Under Family Code section 3040, subdivision (e), the trial court has “the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child” when making initial long-term custody orders.6 (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 31 (Burgess).) To determine a child’s best interest, the court must consider several factors, including “[t]he health, safety, and welfare of the child,” a history of abuse by one parent | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Daveggio & Michaud
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 823 .) Specifically, the court must consider several factors, including: (1) the nature of the defendant’s past sexual offense; (2) the relevance of the past offense in proving the charged offense; (3) the remoteness of the past offense; (4) the similarity of the past offense to the charged offense; and (5) the degree of certainty the defendant committed the past offense. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 .) Accordingly, the court’s findings concerning “the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s triggering offense may play a significant role in determining the sentence that is actually 7 imposed upon the defendant under the Three Strikes law.” (In re Coley (2012) 55 Cal.4th 524, 560 (Coley).) While a court must state on the record its reasons for granting a motion to strike a prior conviction, it is not required to explain its reasons for denying such a motion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2021And counsel for the defense, your client’s strikes are from 1999, but the behavior in this case shows the violent nature of the defendant.” Under section 1385, the trial court may strike a defendant’s prior strike convictions. (§1385; Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529–530.) Before deciding to strike a prior conviction, the court must consider several factors, including the nature and circumstances of the current and prior offenses and the particulars of the defendant’s background, character, and prospects. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sherwood T. Rodrigues v. United States Secretary of Labor, Raymond J. Donovan, Defendants
green
1 sentence1989(Rodrigues v. Donovan (9th Cir. 1985) 769 F.2d 1344, 1349 .) The court must consider several factors and balance the agency’s interest against the interests of private parties in obtaining adequate and fair resolution of their claims. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.