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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2025 3 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. Carrgreen1 sentence2025However, while the instructions in Carr were not precisely the same as those in this case, just like the challenged instruction in Carr, the criminal negligence instruction in Love’s case “did not relate to implied malice or second degree murder at all.” (Carr, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.) Thus, as we have discussed, the jury had no basis to find Love guilty of second degree murder based on a standard from an unrelated instruction for a different charge. | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Vicegreen2 sentences2023Instead the [trial] court should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by 8 the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” ( Hensley, supra, at p. 435 ; Fox, supra, 563 U.S. at p. 834 [“the presence of . . . unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney[] fees that the plaintiff reasonably incurred in remedying a breach of his civil rights”].) In other words, there is an analytical difference between an unsuccessful claim and an unrelated claim. 2023Instead the [trial] court should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by 8 the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” ( Hensley, supra, at p. 435 ; Fox, supra, 563 U.S. at p. 834 [“the presence of . . . unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney[] fees that the plaintiff reasonably incurred in remedying a breach of his civil rights”].) In other words, there is an analytical difference between an unsuccessful claim and an unrelated claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barrickred2 sentences1983(Cf. People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 129 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 654 1243].) Three other felony convictions were ruled inadmissible. 1983(Cf. People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 129 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 654 1243].) Three other felony convictions were ruled inadmissible. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floydyellow2 sentences1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l 1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allumsgreen2 sentences1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l 1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l 1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wheelergreen2 sentences1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l 1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal. App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal. Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal. App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal. Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra . ) [7] The assumption appears somewhat | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wileygreen2 sentences1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l 1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Eckerhart
green
1 sentence2023Instead the [trial] court should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by 8 the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” ( Hensley, supra, at p. 435 ; Fox, supra, 563 U.S. at p. 834 [“the presence of . . . unsuccessful claims does not immunize a defendant against paying for the attorney[] fees that the plaintiff reasonably incurred in remedying a breach of his civil rights”].) In other words, there is an analytical difference between an unsuccessful claim and an unrelated claim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Utility Cost Management v. East Bay Municipal Utility District
green
1 sentence2022Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252 .) But it remains within the power of local agencies to secure that benefit by drafting legislation in such a way that funding for capital projects is not imperiled by an unrelated challenge to some other aspect of the law. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Balkins v. County of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2016Nor could it have done so directly. “ ‘It is an elementary and fundamental rule of appellate procedure that a judgment or order will not be disturbed on an appeal prosecuted by a party who consented to it. [Citations.]’ A stipulation is a consent within the meaning of this rule. [Citations.]” (Brooms v. Brooms (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 351, 352 .) LouBar claims the trial court “erroneously conflated the prior court’s efforts to provide ‘notice’ . . . with the unrelated doctrine of waiver.” It criticizes the trial court’s reliance on the “completely inapposite” decision in Balkins v. County of Los | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brooms v. Brooms
green
1 sentence2016Nor could it have done so directly. “ ‘It is an elementary and fundamental rule of appellate procedure that a judgment or order will not be disturbed on an appeal prosecuted by a party who consented to it. [Citations.]’ A stipulation is a consent within the meaning of this rule. [Citations.]” (Brooms v. Brooms (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 351, 352 .) LouBar claims the trial court “erroneously conflated the prior court’s efforts to provide ‘notice’ . . . with the unrelated doctrine of waiver.” It criticizes the trial court’s reliance on the “completely inapposite” decision in Balkins v. County of Los | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hamlin
green
1 sentence2014(CALCRIM No. 370.) This same argument was rejected by the California Supreme Court most recently in People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174 (Whisenhunt) and by our court in People v. Hamlin (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Hamlin). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Whisenhunt
green
1 sentence2014(CALCRIM No. 370.) This same argument was rejected by the California Supreme Court most recently in People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174 (Whisenhunt) and by our court in People v. Hamlin (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Hamlin). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sundance v. Municipal Court
green
1 sentence2002So if the hours on the nonaccepted theories were “reasonably spent,” not to include them in the fee award would deny the “just compensation for expenses actually incurred in vindicating a public right.” (Sundance II, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 273 .) But it does not follow that time spent to vindicate an unrelated claim not otherwise within the purview of section 1021.5 was time actually incurred in vindicating a public right. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Swain v. Alabama
red
2 sentences1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l 1983(See e.g., Swain v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 202 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 759 , 85 S.Ct. 824 ]; People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 727-728 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ], cert. den. 406 U.S. 972 ] 32 L.Ed.2d 672 , 92 S.Ct. 2418 ], overruled in People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 287, fn. 36; People v. Wiley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 149, 166 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Allums (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 654, 663-664 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Anderson (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], all disapproved in People v. Wheeler, supra.) The assumption appears somewhat doubtful in l | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.