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.
48 California opinions name it 4 courts 1867–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carpentergreen2 sentences1949This doctrine is announced by Blackstone, who says that it is a thousand years old.” (See, also, 41 C.J.S. 715-718.) Nor are we unaware of the provision of section 4468, Political Code, that “The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.” We interpret State v. Carpenter (1947), 67 Idaho 277, 281 [ 176 P.2d 919, 921 ], as holding that a statutory provision identical with our seventh subdivision of section 26, Penal Code, “d 1949This doctrine is announced by Blackstone, who says that it is a thousand years old.” (See, also, 41 C.J.S. 715-718.) Nor are we unaware of the provision of section 4468, Political Code, that “The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.” We interpret State v. Carpenter (1947), 67 Idaho 277, 281 [ 176 P.2d 919, 921 ], as holding that a statutory provision identical with our seventh subdivision of section 26, Penal Code, “d | 2 | 2 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2006(Id. at pp. 309-310.) “Although Arizona v. Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. 279 , analyzed the consequence of an error implicating the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, California courts have frequently relied upon such United States Supreme Court analysis in analogous situations in which the fundamental constitutional right to parent is the subject of some error.” (Judith P. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 535, 554 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 14 ].) “Although parents in dependency proceedings are not prosecuted as defendants, petitions often contain allegations of criminal activity[, a 2002(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309-311 [ 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-1266 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ]; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 851-852 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 919 P.2d 1280 ].) Although Arizona v. Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. 279 , analyzed the consequence of an error implicating the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, California courts have frequently relied upon such United States Supreme Court analysis in analogous situations in which the fundamental constitutional right to parent is the subject of some error. 13 Arizona v. Fulminante involved the erroneous admissio | 1 | 2 |
Western States Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwoodgreen2 sentences1917Co. v. Lockwood, 166 Cal. 185 , [ 135 Pac. 496 ], wherein, in reference to the president of plaintiff, it is said: “It is universally held as a consequence of this doctrine that he may not on behalf of the corporation contract with himself as an individual, which of course includes contracting with others with whom he has an interest, without the full knowledge and approval of the corporation.” Among the many cases cited from other states we refer only to Ward v. City Trust Co. of New York, 192 N. Y. 61 , [ 84 N. E. 585 ]. 1917Co. v. Lockwood, 166 Cal. 185 , [ 135 Pac. 496 ], wherein, in reference to the president of plaintiff, it is said: “It is universally held as a consequence of this doctrine that he may not on behalf of the corporation contract with himself as an individual, which of course includes contracting with others with whom he has an interest, without the full knowledge and approval of the corporation.” Among the many cases cited from other states we refer only to Ward v. City Trust Co. of New York, 192 N. Y. 61 , [ 84 N. E. 585 ]. | 1 | 2 |
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Jennettgreen2 sentences2023If that court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties, full faith and credit need not be given.’ ” (Jennett, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 113 .) 5 This limitation, however, is itself limited. 2023Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that “[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” As a consequence of this clause, “ ‘[a] final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.’ ” (Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 113 (Jennett).) “[T]he principal limitation on the obligation to give full faith and credit to a sister state ju | 1 | 1 |
Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenekgreen1 sentence2014He relies primarily on Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1568-1569 (Thrifty-Tel), a decision we find distinguishable. | 1 | 1 |
Codekas v. Dyna-Lift Co.green1 sentence2014(Dumas v. Stark (1961) 56 Cal.2d 673, 674 ; Codekas v. Dyna-Lift Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 20, 23, fn. 1 .) Moreover, where the appeal does not contain a reporter’s transcript, the reviewing court presumes there was substantial evidence to support the judgment. “‘It is elementary 2 Even if we could, the Matlocks have failed to provide us with a copy of the motion seeking the offset or the order granting the offset. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lowegreen2 sentences2009(People v. Lowe (2007) 40 Cal.4th 937, 946 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 154 P.3d 358 ], citing Barker, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 813 .) No evidence is in the record of a deliberate violation by the prosecutor of the duty to expedite criminal proceedings “to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice.” (§ 1050, subd. (a).) 2009(People v. Lowe (2007) 40 Cal.4th 937, 946 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 154 P.3d 358 ], citing Barker, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 813 .) No evidence is in the record of a deliberate violation by the prosecutor of the duty to expedite criminal proceedings “to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice.” (§ 1050, subd. (a).) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mariongreen2 sentences2009(U nited States v. Marion [(1971)] 404 U.S. 307, 320 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 468 , 92 S.Ct. 455 ].) [<][] Unlike federal law, however, this state has extended the right to the preindictment and prearrest stage, holding that it attaches under article I, section 15, of our Constitution after a complaint has been filed. [Citations.] But the consequence of a violation depends upon the stage at which a violation of the right occurs. 2009(U nited States v. Marion [(1971)] 404 U.S. 307, 320 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 468 , 92 S.Ct. 455 ].) [<][] Unlike federal law, however, this state has extended the right to the preindictment and prearrest stage, holding that it attaches under article I, section 15, of our Constitution after a complaint has been filed. [Citations.] But the consequence of a violation depends upon the stage at which a violation of the right occurs. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wagnergreen2 sentences2009The reasons for the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes.” (§ 1385, subd. (a).) 7 The consequence of a violation of section 1381 is “only dismissal of the probation revocation proceedings, and not the dismissal of the convictions underlying the grant of probation.” (People v. Wagner (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1039, 1053 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 , 201 P.3d 1168 ].) 8 If Contreras had carried his burden, we could have reached his argument that the delay also prejudiced him by his loss of an opportunity to serve a concurrent sentence, but that alone is insufficient to establish prej 2009The reasons for the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes.” (§ 1385, subd. (a).) 7 The consequence of a violation of section 1381 is “only dismissal of the probation revocation proceedings, and not the dismissal of the convictions underlying the grant of probation.” (People v. Wagner (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1039, 1053 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 , 201 P.3d 1168 ].) 8 If Contreras had carried his burden, we could have reached his argument that the delay also prejudiced him by his loss of an opportunity to serve a concurrent sentence, but that alone is insufficient to establish prej | 1 | 1 |
| Judith P. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Kristin H.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Marshallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Department of Social Services v. Ronald P.yellow | 1 | 1 |
| City of Hope National Medical Center v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Zunigagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Van Den Eikhof v. Hockergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Henderson v. Harnischfeger Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rogers v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beaudry v. Petersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Denham v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2023(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) As a consequence of this rule, the appellant (here, Bezhanski) has the burden of providing the court with an adequate record to determine whether any error was committed below. 2023(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Thus, an appellant must demonstrate prejudicial or reversible error based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to an adequate record. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Scherling v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2013In Scherling v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 493, 504 , our Supreme Court explained the differences between the state and federal right to a speedy trial. “[U]nder California as well as federal law, the right to a speedy trial clearly attaches after an arrest or the filing of an indictment or information. [Citation.] [¶] Unlike federal law, however, this state has extended the right to the preindictment and prearrest stage, holding that it attaches under article I, section 15, of our Constitution after a complaint has been filed. [Citations.] But the consequence of a violation depends upon 2009The right to a speedy trial following the filing of an indictment or information and the time limitations applicable thereto are set forth by statute [citation] and a violation of the statute is presumed to be prejudicial. [Citation.] A violation at a prior stage depends upon a balancing of the prejudicial effect of the delay and the justification therefor. [Citations.]” (Scherling, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 504 , fns. omitted.) “No presumption of prejudice arises from delay after the filing of the complaint and before arrest or formal accusation by indictment or information [citation]; rather, t | 2 | 2009–2013 |
People v. Harris
green
2 sentences1992Appellant clearly understood that the full consequence of his waiver would be to deny him any custody credit for time spent at the ranch. [4] In People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal. App.3d 1223 , the Second Appellate District recognized that the defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive custody credit already accrued. 1992Appellant clearly understood that the full consequence of his waiver would be to deny him any custody credit for time spent at the ranch. 4 In People v. Harris (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1223 , the Second Appellate District recognized that the defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive custody credit already accrued. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.
red
2 sentences1987III (6a) The trial court also determined that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that class-wide proof was available to substantiate her allegation that "plaintiff and the other members of the class paid more for glass containers than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal combination and conspiracy...." (7) If plaintiff proves a violation of the antitrust laws, she still must prove that class members suffered the "fact of damage," "impact" or "injury" as a consequence of that violation. [7] ( Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp. (3d Cir.1977) 561 F.2d 434, 454 .) In other words, plaintiff must 1987Ill The trial court also determined that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that class-wide proof was available to substantiate her allegation that “plaintiff and the other members of the class paid more for glass containers than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal combination and conspiracy____” If plaintiff proves a violation of the antitrust laws, she still must prove that class members suffered the “fact of damage,” “impact” or “injury” as a consequence of that violation. 7 (Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp. (3d Cir. 1977) 561 F.2d 434, 454 .) In other words, plaintiff must demonstrat | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Wright v. Roseberry
green
2 sentences1908The consequence of the rule as thus stated is that a motion for a nonsuit presents for the decision of the court a pure question of law.” (Archibald Estate v. Matteson, 5 Cal. App. 441 , [90 Pac. 725]; Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Gallavan, 43 Cal. 476 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The settled rule is that, upon a motion for a nonsuit made upon the close of plaintiff’s case, if the evidence t 1908The consequence of the rule as thus stated is that a motion for a nonsuit presents for the decision of the court a pure question of law.” (Archibald Estate v. Matteson, 5 Cal. App. 441 , [90 Pac. 725]; Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Gallavan, 43 Cal. 476 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The settled rule is that, upon a motion for a nonsuit made upon the close of plaintiff’s case, if the evidence t | 2 | 1907–1908 |
Schroeder v. Schmidt
neutral
2 sentences1908The consequence of the rule as thus stated is that a motion for a nonsuit presents for the decision of the court a pure question of law.” (Archibald Estate v. Matteson, 5 Cal. App. 441 , [90 Pac. 725]; Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Gallavan, 43 Cal. 476 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The settled rule is that, upon a motion for a nonsuit made upon the close of plaintiff’s case, if the evidence t 1907(Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Callavan, 43 Cal. 576 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The sole question, therefore, is: Does the evidence tend to prove the material averments of the complaint? | 2 | 1907–1908 |
Warner v. Darrow
green
2 sentences1908The consequence of the rule as thus stated is that a motion for a nonsuit presents for the decision of the court a pure question of law.” (Archibald Estate v. Matteson, 5 Cal. App. 441 , [90 Pac. 725]; Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Gallavan, 43 Cal. 476 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The settled rule is that, upon a motion for a nonsuit made upon the close of plaintiff’s case, if the evidence t 1907(Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Callavan, 43 Cal. 576 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The sole question, therefore, is: Does the evidence tend to prove the material averments of the complaint? | 2 | 1907–1908 |
Goldstone v. Merchants' Ice & Cold Storage Co.
green
2 sentences1908The consequence of the rule as thus stated is that a motion for a nonsuit presents for the decision of the court a pure question of law.” (Archibald Estate v. Matteson, 5 Cal. App. 441 , [90 Pac. 725]; Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Gallavan, 43 Cal. 476 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The settled rule is that, upon a motion for a nonsuit made upon the close of plaintiff’s case, if the evidence t 1907(Cravens v. Dewey, 13 Cal. 41 ; Donahue v. Callavan, 43 Cal. 576 ; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 460 , [ 16 Pac. 243 ]; Warner v. Darrow, 91 Cal. 311 , [ 27 Pac. 737 ]; Goldstone v. Merchants’ etc. Co., 123 Cal. 631 , [ 56 Pac. 776 ]; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87 , [ 22 Pac. 336 ].) The sole question, therefore, is: Does the evidence tend to prove the material averments of the complaint? | 2 | 1907–1908 |
People v. K.J. (In re K.J.)
green
1 sentence2026(In re K.J., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1130-1131.) Thus, we reject N.S.’s contention that the reasonable suspicion standard did not apply here because the search was conducted by a police officer. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Maria P. v. Riles
green
1 sentence2023(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295 .) Moreover, because the reviewing court must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment, failure to provide an adequate record on an issue raised on appeal requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Arceneaux
green
1 sentence2023(In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) As a consequence of this presumption of correctness, error must be affirmatively shown. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ward v. San Diego School District
green
1 sentence2021Ed. Code, §§ 35160, 35160.2, 35162, 72000, subd. (a); Ward v. San Diego School 69 Dist. (1928) 203 Cal. 712, 718-719 ; Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1114-1115 ; 79 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 287. 70 98 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 101; 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 67 , 75 (2012). 13 21-101 substantial issues of incompatibility between the two public offices that are the subject of the application. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District
green
1 sentence2021Ed. Code, §§ 35160, 35160.2, 35162, 72000, subd. (a); Ward v. San Diego School 69 Dist. (1928) 203 Cal. 712, 718-719 ; Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1114-1115 ; 79 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 287. 70 98 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 101; 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 67 , 75 (2012). 13 21-101 substantial issues of incompatibility between the two public offices that are the subject of the application. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dumas v. Stark
green
1 sentence2014(Dumas v. Stark (1961) 56 Cal.2d 673, 674 ; Codekas v. Dyna-Lift Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 20, 23, fn. 1 .) Moreover, where the appeal does not contain a reporter’s transcript, the reviewing court presumes there was substantial evidence to support the judgment. “‘It is elementary 2 Even if we could, the Matlocks have failed to provide us with a copy of the motion seeking the offset or the order granting the offset. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ash v. North American Title Co.
green
1 sentence2014Although the injured party’s own failure to avoid loss may bar recovery for that loss, this is not thought of as a consequence of a requirement of causation but of a limitation under a “mitigation” rule.’ ” (Ash v. North American Title Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1274-1275 .) Methven suggests the jury was entitled to consider Bank’s lack of mitigation efforts prior to the actual breach of contract. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Heritage Cablevision of California, Inc. v. Pusateri
green
2 sentences2013Heritage Cablevision of Cal., Inc. v. Pusateri (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 517 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 ] (Heritage) supports our interpretation of the word “violation.” In Heritage, a cable television company sued the defendant for civil liability under Penal Code section 593d, which imposes criminal and civil liability for tampering with cable television systems. 2013Heritage Cablevision of Cal., Inc. v. Pusateri (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 517 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 ] (Heritage) supports our interpretation of the word “violation.” In Heritage, a cable television company sued the defendant for civil liability under Penal Code section 593d, which imposes criminal and civil liability for tampering with cable television systems. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Musaelian v. Adams
green
2 sentences2012In Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 198 P.3d 560 ], the court held that a self-represented attorney could not recover monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, which “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Musaelian, at p. 514.) Under that statute, “[s]anctions may include payment to the movant of attorney fees [and other expenses] incurred as a consequence of the violation.” (Ibid., italics added.) Nevertheless, the court explained: “ 2012In Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 , 198 P.3d 560 ], the court held that a self-represented attorney could not recover monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, which “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Musaelian, at p. 514.) Under that statute, “[s]anctions may include payment to the movant of attorney fees [and other expenses] incurred as a consequence of the violation.” (Ibid., italics added.) Nevertheless, the court explained: “ | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ticconi v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance
green
1 sentence2010(Ticconi, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 540 .) In contrast to section 10113, which applies to several types of documents that may not be incorporated by reference into a policy unless certain requirements are met, section 10381.5 applies only to the application itself and does not involve the question of incorporation by reference. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Trope v. Katz
green
2 sentences2009This issue is similar to one we considered in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 ] (Trope), where we concluded the phrase “attorney’s fees” in Civil Code section 1717 does not include compensation for the time and effort attorneys expend representing themselves or for professional business opportunities lost as a result of self-representation. 2009This issue is similar to one we considered in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 ] (Trope), where we concluded the phrase “attorney’s fees” in Civil Code section 1717 does not include compensation for the time and effort attorneys expend representing themselves or for professional business opportunities lost as a result of self-representation. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Barker v. Municipal Court of the Salinas Judicial District of Monterey County
green
1 sentence2009(People v. Lowe (2007) 40 Cal.4th 937, 946 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 154 P.3d 358 ], citing Barker, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 813 .) No evidence is in the record of a deliberate violation by the prosecutor of the duty to expedite criminal proceedings “to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice.” (§ 1050, subd. (a).) | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2009The right to a speedy trial following the filing of an indictment or information and the time limitations applicable thereto are set forth by statute [citation] and a violation of the statute is presumed to be prejudicial. [Citation.] A violation at a prior stage depends upon a balancing of the prejudicial effect of the delay and the justification therefor. [Citations.]” (Scherling, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 504 , fns. omitted.) “No presumption of prejudice arises from delay after the filing of the complaint and before arrest or formal accusation by indictment or information [citation]; rather, t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Hathaway v. Cedarburg Mutual Insurance neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| People v. Watson green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Verdier v. Verdier green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Guardianship of Diana B. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Santosky v. Kramer green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Ross green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| cluster 348624 green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Rosack v. Volvo of America Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| People v. Archerd green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Hannon red | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Jones v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| McNabb v. United States green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Mallory v. United States yellow | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Cummings v. Strobridge Land Syndicate, Pac. Improvement Co. neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Hakes Investment Co. v. Lyons green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Flittner v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States green | 1 | 1919–1919 |
| Ward v. City Trust Co. of New York green | 1 | 1917–1917 |
| Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. Smith green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.