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 1963–1972 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. Lindgreen2 sentences1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m 1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m | 4 | 4 |
People v. Hockinggreen2 sentences1971Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.’ (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [ 330 P.2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 296 P.2d 59 ].)” Here defendant was aware of his right to be tried within 45 days. 1971Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.’ (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [ 330 P.2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 296 P.2d 59 ].)” Here defendant was aware of his right to be tried within 45 days. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bakergreen2 sentences1971Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.’ (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [ 330 P.2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 296 P.2d 59 ].)” Here defendant was aware of his right to be tried within 45 days. 1971Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.’ (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [ 330 P.2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 296 P.2d 59 ].)” Here defendant was aware of his right to be tried within 45 days. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m 1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tahtinengreen2 sentences1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m 1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m | 2 | 2 |
Ray v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m 1971To begin with, it is settled that ‘When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.’ (Italics added.) (People v. Taylor (1959) supra, 52 Cal.2d 91, 93 [ 338 P.2d 377 ]; People v. Tahtinen (1958) supra, 50 Cal.2d 127, 131 [ 323 P.2d 442 ]; Ray v. Superior Court (1929) 208 Cal. 357, 358 [ 281 P. 391 ].) The twofold purpose of this requirement is well explained in People v. Lind (1924) 68 Cal.App. 575, 579 [ 229 P. 990 ]: ‘First, by calling the attention of the trial court to the facts upon which the objection is founded, it m | 2 | 2 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences1971Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.’ (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [ 330 P.2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 296 P.2d 59 ].)” Here defendant was aware of his right to be tried within 45 days. 1971Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.’ (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [ 330 P.2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 296 P.2d 59 ].)” Here defendant was aware of his right to be tried within 45 days. | 2 | 2 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1972One device which has been firmly condemned is the introduction of evidence not itself seized in the illegal search but “come at by exploitation of that illegality” (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488 [9 L.Ed,2d 441, 455, 83 S.Ct. 407 ]; People v. Bilderbach (1965) 62 Cal.2d 757, 764 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 401 P.2d 921 ], and cases cited). 1972One device which has been firmly condemned is the introduction of evidence not itself seized in the illegal search but “come at by exploitation of that illegality” (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488 [9 L.Ed,2d 441, 455, 83 S.Ct. 407 ]; People v. Bilderbach (1965) 62 Cal.2d 757, 764 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 401 P.2d 921 ], and cases cited). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bilderbachgreen2 sentences1972One device which has been firmly condemned is the introduction of evidence not itself seized in the illegal search but “come at by exploitation of that illegality” (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488 [9 L.Ed,2d 441, 455, 83 S.Ct. 407 ]; People v. Bilderbach (1965) 62 Cal.2d 757, 764 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 401 P.2d 921 ], and cases cited). 1972One device which has been firmly condemned is the introduction of evidence not itself seized in the illegal search but “come at by exploitation of that illegality” (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488 [9 L.Ed,2d 441, 455, 83 S.Ct. 407 ]; People v. Bilderbach (1965) 62 Cal.2d 757, 764 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 401 P.2d 921 ], and cases cited). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Apakeangreen2 sentences1963Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.” (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [10-11] [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [2] [ 330 P2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [4] [ 296 P.2d 59 ].) Moreover, it is equally well settled that even after such an objection “There is no duty incumbent on the c 1963Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.” (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [10-11] [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [2] [ 330 P2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [4] [ 296 P.2d 59 ].) Moreover, it is equally well settled that even after such an objection “There is no duty incumbent on the c | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences1963Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.” (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [10-11] [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [2] [ 330 P2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [4] [ 296 P.2d 59 ].) Moreover, it is equally well settled that even after such an objection “There is no duty incumbent on the c 1963Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.” (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [10-11] [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [2] [ 330 P2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [4] [ 296 P.2d 59 ].) Moreover, it is equally well settled that even after such an objection “There is no duty incumbent on the c | 1 | 1 |
People v. Contreraigreen2 sentences1963Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.” (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [10-11] [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [2] [ 330 P2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [4] [ 296 P.2d 59 ].) Moreover, it is equally well settled that even after such an objection “There is no duty incumbent on the c 1963Second, the objection must be made as a forerunner to a motion to dismiss, for it has been uniformly determined that on appeal an order denying the motion will be affirmed if the record does not show that the objection was made.” (In support of the latter proposition, see People v. Miller (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 361, 365 [10-11] [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 920 ]; People v. Baker (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 99, 102-103 [2] [ 330 P2d 240 ]; People v. Hocking (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [4] [ 296 P.2d 59 ].) Moreover, it is equally well settled that even after such an objection “There is no duty incumbent on the c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kaplan v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1972(People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ].) We recently reiterated that the twofold purpose of this rule is “to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and seizures by removing their incentive to do so, and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct.” (Fns. omitted.) (Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 155-156 .) Those goals would be ill served indeed if the People were permitted to do in | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ].) We recently reiterated that the twofold purpose of this rule is “to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and seizures by removing their incentive to do so, and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct.” (Fns. omitted.) (Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 155-156 .) Those goals would be ill served indeed if the People were permitted to do in 1972(People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ].) We recently reiterated that the twofold purpose of this rule is “to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and seizures by removing their incentive to do so, and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct.” (Fns. omitted.) (Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 155-156 .) Those goals would be ill served indeed if the People were permitted to do in | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Cahan
yellow
2 sentences1972(People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ].) We recently reiterated that the twofold purpose of this rule is “to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and seizures by removing their incentive to do so, and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct.” (Fns. omitted.) (Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 155-156 .) Those goals would be ill served indeed if the People were permitted to do in 1972(People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ].) We recently reiterated that the twofold purpose of this rule is “to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and seizures by removing their incentive to do so, and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct.” (Fns. omitted.) (Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 155-156 .) Those goals would be ill served indeed if the People were permitted to do in | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Martin
green
2 sentences1971The twofold purpose of that rule, we explained, was to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and seizures by removing their incentive to do so, 2 and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct. 3 Among the numerous decisions which thereafter implemented various aspects of the Cahan rule, one of the most important was People v. Martin (1955) supra, 45 Cal.2d 755 . 1971The twofold purpose of that rule, we explained, was to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unconstitutional searches and *156 seizures by removing their incentive to do so, [2] and to relieve the courts from being compelled to participate in such illegal conduct. [3] Among the numerous decisions which thereafter implemented various aspects of the Cahan rule, one of the most important was People v. Martin (1955) supra, 45 Cal.2d 755 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.