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 1970–2017 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. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017(People v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 929, 932 .) “The trial judge has the opportunity to observe the subtle factors of demeanor and tone of voice which mark the distinction between acquiescence and evasion of individual choice. 1971The subsequent equivocation of a single juror was a matter to be weighed in light of the circumstances by the trial judge who alone “has the opportunity to observe the subtle factors of demeanor and tone of voice.” (People v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.2d 929, 932 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 327 , 434 P.2d 623 , 25 A.L.R.3d 1143 ].) The single request for repetition of the instructions in the present case was insufficient to impeach the declarations of the majority where the instructions had been twice repeated and the jury had already deliberated at length. | 2 | 3 |
Miller v. Nestandegreen2 sentences1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court 1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. Larsengreen2 sentences1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court 1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court | 1 | 1 |
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court 1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court | 1 | 1 |
Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court 1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.green2 sentences1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court 1991Since, however, a jury verdict in a defamation case can only be supported when the actual malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a preponderance of evidence as in most other cases, [citation], the evidence and all the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from it must meet the higher standard.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 690 P.2d 610 ], See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) 477 U.S. 242, 256-257 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216-217 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 ]; Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sullivangreen2 sentences1971(People v. Sullivan, 101 Cal.App.2d 322, 327-329 [ 225 P.2d 645 ].) Defendant also contends that the court in the second trial committed reversible error as it failed to give an instruction on misdemeanor assault. 1971(People v. Sullivan, 101 Cal.App.2d 322, 327-329 [ 225 P.2d 645 ].) Defendant also contends that the court in the second trial committed reversible error as it failed to give an instruction on misdemeanor assault. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles G. Rebozo, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. The Washington Post Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross
green
1 sentence1984The Fifth Circuit in Rebozo v. Washington Post Co. (1981) 637 F.2d 375 , undertook such an analysis and reached the following conclusion: “[T]he standard of review of First Amendment defamation actions, as in all summary judgment cases, is whether the record, construed in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment has been entered, demonstrates there are genuine issues of fact which, if proven, would support a jury verdict for that party. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1970This rationale, of course, goes right back to the rationale of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 ], which, in a nutshell, is that the subtle factors which may make an actual lineup unfair in many cases simply cannot be demonstrated at the trial. 1970This rationale, of course, goes right back to the rationale of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 ], which, in a nutshell, is that the subtle factors which may make an actual lineup unfair in many cases simply cannot be demonstrated at the trial. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.