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 2 courts 1916–2021 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. Padillagreen2 sentences2001Because defendant fails to explain how the state of the appellate record precludes this court from determining whether the trial court's ruling constitutes error, he has not met his burden of showing that the deficiencies have prejudiced him. ( People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 966 , 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 426 , 906 P.2d 388 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 663 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 .) [6] As given in this case, CALJIC No. 8.21 provides: "The unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the commission or attempte 2001Because defendant fails to explain how the state of the appellate record precludes this court from determining whether the trial court's ruling constitutes error, he has not met his burden of showing that the deficiencies have prejudiced him. ( People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 966 , 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 426 , 906 P.2d 388 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 663 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 .) [6] As given in this case, CALJIC No. 8.21 provides: "The unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the commission or attempte | 1 | 2 |
People v. Osbandgreen2 sentences2001Because defendant fails to explain how the state of the appellate record precludes this court from determining whether the trial court's ruling constitutes error, he has not met his burden of showing that the deficiencies have prejudiced him. ( People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 966 , 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 426 , 906 P.2d 388 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 663 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 .) [6] As given in this case, CALJIC No. 8.21 provides: "The unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the commission or attempte 2001Because defendant fails to explain how the state of the appellate record precludes this court from determining whether the trial court's ruling constitutes error, he has not met his burden of showing that the deficiencies have prejudiced him. ( People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 966 , 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 426 , 906 P.2d 388 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 663 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 .) [6] As given in this case, CALJIC No. 8.21 provides: "The unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the commission or attempte | 1 | 2 |
NIKO v. Foremangreen2 sentences2013Liberty, as appellant, has the burden of persuasion; “[o]ne cannot simply say the court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why.” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ].) “ ‘[E]very brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. 2013Liberty, as appellant, has the burden of persuasion; “[o]ne cannot simply say the court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why.” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ].) “ ‘[E]very brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. | 1 | 1 |
Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304green2 sentences1988The failure by Imperial to secure such a ruling constitutes a waiver of the objection. ( Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal. App.2d 675, 698 [ 39 Cal. Rptr. 64 ].) However, even if considered, the self-serving claim to which the objection had been directed was not sufficient, in light of this record, to raise a triable issue as to Derian's agency. [8] The relevant sections of the Insurance Code are: "§ 330. 1988The failure by Imperial to secure such a ruling constitutes a waiver of the objection. ( Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal. App.2d 675, 698 [ 39 Cal. Rptr. 64 ].) However, even if considered, the self-serving claim to which the objection had been directed was not sufficient, in light of this record, to raise a triable issue as to Derian's agency. [8] The relevant sections of the Insurance Code are: "§ 330. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. JTH Tax, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Father’s “failure to address all bases for the court’s ruling constitutes a waiver of [his] appellate claim.” (JTH Tax, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1237 .) We therefore need not address father’s argument under subdivision (c)(2) because his waiver of any appellate claim with respect to subdivision (e)(1) provides us with “one good reason,” which is all that is necessary, to affirm the judgment. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rappleyea v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2021(JTH Tax, at p. 1237; Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2021(JTH Tax, at p. 1237; Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rankin v. Superior Court of S.F.
green
2 sentences1916Section 1191 of the Penal Code provides that upon" a defendant being convicted, "the court must appoint a time for pronouncing judgment which must not be less than two, nor more than five days after the verdict or plea of guilty; provided, however, that the court may extend the time not more than ten days for the purpose of hearing or determining any motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment; and provided, further, that the court may extend the time not more than twenty days in any case where the question of probation is considered in accordance with section 1203 of this code, provided, 1916Section 1191 of the Penal Code provides that upon" a defendant being convicted, "the court must appoint a time for pronouncing judgment which must not be less than two, nor more than five days after the verdict or plea of guilty; provided, however, that the court may extend the time not more than ten days for the purpose of hearing or determining any motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment; and provided, further, that the court may extend the time not more than twenty days in any case where the question of probation is considered in accordance with section 1203 of this code, provided, | 1 | 1916–1916 |
People v. Polich
neutral
2 sentences1916Section 1191 of the Penal Code provides that upon" a defendant being convicted, "the court must appoint a time for pronouncing judgment which must not be less than two, nor more than five days after the verdict or plea of guilty; provided, however, that the court may extend the time not more than ten days for the purpose of hearing or determining any motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment; and provided, further, that the court may extend the time not more than twenty days in any case where the question of probation is considered in accordance with section 1203 of this code, provided, 1916Section 1191 of the Penal Code provides that upon" a defendant being convicted, "the court must appoint a time for pronouncing judgment which must not be less than two, nor more than five days after the verdict or plea of guilty; provided, however, that the court may extend the time not more than ten days for the purpose of hearing or determining any motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment; and provided, further, that the court may extend the time not more than twenty days in any case where the question of probation is considered in accordance with section 1203 of this code, provided, | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.