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 1981–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mounts v. Uyedagreen2 sentences1998Unless it is in total conflict with the Constitution, any overbreadth is cured by a case-by-case analysis of the particular fact situation. [Citation.] A statute will be declared invalid in its entirety only when its scope cannot be limited to constitutionally applicable situations except by reading in numerous qualifications and exceptions, i.e., rewriting it, or if it is invalid in certain situations and cannot be enforced in others without danger of an uncertain or vague future application. [Citation.]” (Mounts v. Uyeda (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 111, 122 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 730 ].) In reviewing cha 1998Unless it is in total conflict with the Constitution, any overbreadth is cured by a case-by-case analysis of the particular fact situation. [Citation.] A statute will be declared invalid in its entirety only when its scope cannot be limited to constitutionally applicable situations except by reading in numerous qualifications and exceptions, i.e., rewriting it, or if it is invalid in certain situations and cannot be enforced in others without danger of an uncertain or vague future application. [Citation.]” (Mounts v. Uyeda (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 111, 122 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 730 ].) In reviewing cha | 1 | 1 |
Welsch v. Goswickgreen1 sentence1987To the extent any dicta in the case may be construed to imply the section may be applied retroactively, we disagree with such holding. 7 We also disagree with the Welsch court’s decision condoning self-help by allowing plaintiffs in that case to ignore the injunction. 8 The Welsch court looked at Seaton v. Clifford, supra, in passing but dismissed it as “a 10-year-old case . . . of limited persuasive value.” ( 130 Cal.App.3d at p. 407, fn. 7 .) 9 Plaintiffs and Greenlee contend they are unaffected by the proscriptions against discrimination delineated in the Unruh Civil Rights Act as they do n | 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. Heilman
green
2 sentences1999In People v. Heilman (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 391 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 422 ], this court upheld the statute against a claim that the term “repeatedly” was unconstitutionally vague within the context of the statutory language. 1999In People v. Heilman (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 391 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 422 ], this court upheld the statute against a claim that the term “repeatedly” was unconstitutionally vague within the context of the statutory language. | 2 | 1996–1999 |
People v. Frazer
red
2 sentences2003In People v. Frazer, supra, 21 Cal.4th 737 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 , 982 P.2d 180 , the Supreme Court upheld the statute against a challenge it violated due process by retroactively reviving a dead cause of action. 2003In People v. Frazer, supra, 21 Cal.4th 737 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 , 982 P.2d 180 , the Supreme Court upheld the statute against a challenge it violated due process by retroactively reviving a dead cause of action. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson
green
2 sentences2003The Court discussed Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson (1945) 325 U.S. 304 , 65 S.Ct. 1137 , 89 L.Ed. 1628 , where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld retroactive changes in the applicable limitations period which were detrimental to the defense. 2003The Court discussed Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson (1945) 325 U.S. 304 , 65 S.Ct. 1137 , 89 L.Ed. 1628 , where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld retroactive changes in the applicable limitations period which were detrimental to the defense. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Tran
green
2 sentences1999In People v. Tran (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 253 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 ], the court determined the phrase “serves no legitimate purpose,” which is an element of the statutory definition of “harasses” contained in section 646.9, subdivision (e) was not unconstitutionally vague. 1999In People v. Tran (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 253 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 ], the court determined the phrase “serves no legitimate purpose,” which is an element of the statutory definition of “harasses” contained in section 646.9, subdivision (e) was not unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. McClelland
green
2 sentences1996The court in People v. McClelland (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 144 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 587 ] rejected a vagueness challenge to subdivision (b), which provides the proscribed behavior is a felony when it is the subject of a restraining order. 1996The court in People v. McClelland (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 144 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 587 ] rejected a vagueness challenge to subdivision (b), which provides the proscribed behavior is a felony when it is the subject of a restraining order. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Sidener
red
2 sentences1981In People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 375 P.2d 641 ], this court upheld the statute against a claim that it violated the separation of powers doctrine (Cal. Const., art. 1981In People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 375 P.2d 641 ], this court upheld the statute against a claim that it violated the separation of powers doctrine (Cal. Const., art. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.