6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 2 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. Doughertygreen2 sentences1987(See People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 123 ].) Finally, irrespective of the lack of merit in appellant’s argument in relation to the Tucker instruction, he has waived the issue on appeal; the record reveals appellant requested the instruction. 1987(See People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 123 ].) Finally, irrespective of the lack of merit in appellant’s argument in relation to the Tucker instruction, he has waived the issue on appeal; the record reveals appellant requested the instruction. | 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. Gomez
green
1 sentence2026(See People v. Gomez (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1028 [probation report showing the defendant’s failure to report and failure to attend counseling sessions admissible at revocation hearing].) Tucker presented no contrary evidence. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re the Marriage of Tucker
green
1 sentence2025In support of her request, Elizabeth attached a declaration stating that her 2 These amended property declarations were not included in the record on appeal. 3 In Tucker, the court ruled that a respondent service member “may both agree California has jurisdiction over nonpension issues and at the same time argue California has no power to divide his or her military pension.” (Tucker, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1256 .) 4 Because Emanuel does not argue that the family court had jurisdiction over Elizabeth’s military pension by virtue of her place of residence or domicile, whether she was a resi | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Evans v. CENTERSTONE DEVELOPMENT CO.
green
1 sentence2015(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a); Evans v. Centerstone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 166 .) Tucker’s brief substantially complies with appellate procedure. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013(See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 455 .) Finally, even if we were to conclude the jury's consideration of a certainty factor is erroneous, its inclusion in CALCRIM No. 315 would not require reversal, whether under the state or federal constitutional standard of error. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Beane v. Paulsen
green
1 sentence1998The Beane court concluded the vicarious liability of Vodonick’s former partners for Vodonick’s malpractice occurring while they were partners survived dissolution of the partnership. ( 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 97 .) The Beane court then addressed whether the action against Vodonick’s former partners was barred by the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.