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 1910–2014 0 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. Rousseaugreen2 sentences2001(People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 1188-1189; and see People v. Davenport, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1201 ; People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 167-168; People v. Rousseau (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 526, 536 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 892 ].) In this case, however, defense counsel made a prima facie case of discrimination on voir dire by showing there was no apparent, legitimate reason to excuse Juror No. 9094. {Box, supra, at pp. 1187-1188 .) The record supports the showing made by defense counsel. 2001(People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 1188-1189; and see People v. Davenport, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1201 ; People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 167-168; People v. Rousseau (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 526, 536 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 892 ].) In this case, however, defense counsel made a prima facie case of discrimination on voir dire by showing there was no apparent, legitimate reason to excuse Juror No. 9094. {Box, supra, at pp. 1187-1188 .) The record supports the showing made by defense counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Valentine v. Valentinegreen2 sentences1961(Leupe v. Leupe, supra, pp. 151-152 ; Valentine v. Valentine, 47 Cal.App.2d 438, 440 [ 118 P.2d 17 ] ; Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 242 [ 148 P.2d 381 ].) Plaintiff emphasizes the fact that defendant has not liquidated the business and paid her one-half of the net proceeds as ordered in the divorce case. 1961(Leupe v. Leupe, supra, pp. 151-152 ; Valentine v. Valentine, 47 Cal.App.2d 438, 440 [ 118 P.2d 17 ] ; Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 242 [ 148 P.2d 381 ].) Plaintiff emphasizes the fact that defendant has not liquidated the business and paid her one-half of the net proceeds as ordered in the divorce case. | 1 | 1 |
Becker v. Beckergreen2 sentences1961(Leupe v. Leupe, supra, pp. 151-152 ; Valentine v. Valentine, 47 Cal.App.2d 438, 440 [ 118 P.2d 17 ] ; Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 242 [ 148 P.2d 381 ].) Plaintiff emphasizes the fact that defendant has not liquidated the business and paid her one-half of the net proceeds as ordered in the divorce case. 1961(Leupe v. Leupe, supra, pp. 151-152 ; Valentine v. Valentine, 47 Cal.App.2d 438, 440 [ 118 P.2d 17 ] ; Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 242 [ 148 P.2d 381 ].) Plaintiff emphasizes the fact that defendant has not liquidated the business and paid her one-half of the net proceeds as ordered in the divorce case. | 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. Hustead
green
1 sentence2014(Hustead, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 416 .) But in doing so, the court noted the detailed nature of the showing made by the defense: “In the present case, appellant’s counsel asserted in his declaration that the officer made material misstatements with respect to his observations, including fabricating appellant’s alleged dangerous driving maneuvers. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Davenport
green
1 sentence2001(People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 1188-1189; and see People v. Davenport, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1201 ; People v. Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 167-168; People v. Rousseau (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 526, 536 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 892 ].) In this case, however, defense counsel made a prima facie case of discrimination on voir dire by showing there was no apparent, legitimate reason to excuse Juror No. 9094. {Box, supra, at pp. 1187-1188 .) The record supports the showing made by defense counsel. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Boone v. Lightner
green
2 sentences1944(Briner v. Briner, 60 Cal.App.2d 473 [ 140 P.2d 995 ]; Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561 [ 63 S.Ct. 1223 , 87 L.Ed. 1587 ]; Pope v. V. 1944(Briner v. Briner, 60 Cal.App.2d 473 [ 140 P.2d 995 ]; Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561 [ 63 S.Ct. 1223 , 87 L.Ed. 1587 ]; Pope v. V. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Briner v. Briner
green
2 sentences1944(Briner v. Briner, 60 Cal.App.2d 473 [ 140 P.2d 995 ]; Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561 [ 63 S.Ct. 1223 , 87 L.Ed. 1587 ]; Pope v. V. 1944(Briner v. Briner, 60 Cal.App.2d 473 [ 140 P.2d 995 ]; Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561 [ 63 S.Ct. 1223 , 87 L.Ed. 1587 ]; Pope v. V. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
People v. Nakis
green
2 sentences1922As to the contention of appellant that the question involves a constitutional right which cannot be reached by said section 4% it is sufficient to quote the following: “The manner and method of summoning a jury is a subject matter of legislative control rather than of constitutional provision, . . . the benefit of which may be waived.” (People v. Nakis, 184 Cal. 105 [ 193 Pac. 92 ].) But even if it were a constitutional right that was invaded and it appeared from an examination of the record that there was no “miscarriage of justice,” the error should be disregarded on appeal. 1922As to the contention of appellant that the question involves a constitutional right which cannot be reached by said section 4% it is sufficient to quote the following: “The manner and method of summoning a jury is a subject matter of legislative control rather than of constitutional provision, . . . the benefit of which may be waived.” (People v. Nakis, 184 Cal. 105 [ 193 Pac. 92 ].) But even if it were a constitutional right that was invaded and it appeared from an examination of the record that there was no “miscarriage of justice,” the error should be disregarded on appeal. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Caswell v. . Davis
neutral
1 sentence1910“There is no principle more firmly settled in the law of trademarks than that words or phrases which have been in common use, and which indicate the character, kind, quality and composition of the thing, may not be appropriated by any-one to his exclusive use.” (Caswell v. Davis, 58 N. Y. 223 , [ 17 Am. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.