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 1967–2009 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. Kinggreen2 sentences2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus 2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus | 1 | 2 |
Tom v. Schoolhouse Coins, Inc.green1 sentence1993(Tom v. Schoolhouse Coins, Inc., supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at p. 828, fn. 1 .) The appeal in Tom is from an order of the superior court pursuant to such section “which compels compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Commissioner of Corporations.” (Id. at p. 828.) The case also holds that privacy interests imperilled at a corporations department examination are protected by the Government Code. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Van Randallgreen2 sentences1967Although it has been stated that Penal Code section 995 provides the only grounds upon which an indictment may *645 be set aside (People v. Van Randall (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 771, 774 [ 296 P.2d 68 ]), a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed. 1967Although it has been stated that Penal Code section 995 provides the only grounds upon which an indictment may *645 be set aside (People v. Van Randall (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 771, 774 [ 296 P.2d 68 ]), a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Uniformed Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York
green
2 sentences2009The proceeding here involved no attempt to coerce relinquishment of constitutional rights, because public employees do not have an absolute constitutional right to refuse to account for their official actions and still keep their jobs; their right, conferred by the Fifth Amendment itself, ... is simply that neither what they say under such compulsion nor its fruits can be used against them in a subsequent prosecution.” (Sanitation Men II, supra, 426 F.2d 619, 627 , italics added.) Accordingly, the federal court of appeals ordered the federal district court to enter summary judgment for the cit 2009The proceeding here involved no attempt to coerce relinquishment of constitutional rights, because public employees do not have an absolute constitutional right to refuse to account for their official actions and still keep their jobs; their right, conferred by the Fifth Amendment itself, ... is simply that neither what they say under such compulsion nor its fruits can be used against them in a subsequent prosecution.” (Sanitation Men II, supra, 426 F.2d 619, 627 , italics added.) Accordingly, the federal court of appeals ordered the federal district court to enter summary judgment for the cit | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Backus
green
2 sentences2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus 2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Summers v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus 2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus 2001Appellant does not use the word "jurisdiction," but appears to raise this issue by arguing "[a]ppellant is raising the issue that he has suffered an unauthorized trial and conviction because he was wrongly brought to trial at all." The California Supreme Court has previously recognized the jurisdictional nature of a statutory grant of immunity. ( People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 381 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 710 , 590 P.2d 837 ; People v. King (1967) 66 Cal.2d 633, 645 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 427 P.2d 171 ) (stating "a statutory grant of immunity enjoins the prosecution of a criminal action and thus | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Rucker
yellow
1 sentence1984The Doe decision thus confirms the correctness of the legal reasoning in Hughes and in this case. 9 We note the similarity of the test applied to pretrial interviews in People v. Rucker, supra, 26 Cal.3d at page 382 : “Clearly, the responses made by appellant were ‘communications’ on their face for he was asked to ‘communicate ideas or knowledge of facts.’ The words appellant spoke were not prescribed for him, as in Wade. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Re Connolly
green
1 sentence1967(In re Connolly, supra, 16 Cal.App.2d 709, 714 .) Accordingly, an immunity statute cannot be given its proper effect unless it too is recognized as a proper basis for quashing an indictment. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.