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 1988–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Benoitgreen2 sentences1990This ameliorative doctrine springs from the recognition that delayed filings should be permitted where "slavish adherence to such deadlines ... [would] violate[] *492 more basic justice" ( Castro v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal. App.3d 614, 617 [ 115 Cal. Rptr. 312 ]), and where the cause of the delayed filing was not principally attributable to the fault of the appellants. ( In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 86 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 785 , 514 P.2d 97 ].) Snyder argues the "constructive filing" doctrine may not be applied to an appeal by the People, contending the doctrine was developed solely for 1990This ameliorative doctrine springs from the recognition that delayed filings should be permitted where "slavish adherence to such deadlines ... [would] violate[] *492 more basic justice" ( Castro v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal. App.3d 614, 617 [ 115 Cal. Rptr. 312 ]), and where the cause of the delayed filing was not principally attributable to the fault of the appellants. ( In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 86 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 785 , 514 P.2d 97 ].) Snyder argues the "constructive filing" doctrine may not be applied to an appeal by the People, contending the doctrine was developed solely for | 1 | 1 |
Castro v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1990This ameliorative doctrine springs from the recognition that delayed filings should be permitted where “slavish adherence to such deadlines . . . [would] violate[ ] more basic justice” (Castro v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 614, 617 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 312 ]), and where the cause of the delayed filing was not principally attributable to the fault of the appellants. 1990This ameliorative doctrine springs from the recognition that delayed filings should be permitted where “slavish adherence to such deadlines . . . [would] violate[ ] more basic justice” (Castro v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 614, 617 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 312 ]), and where the cause of the delayed filing was not principally attributable to the fault of the appellants. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McLaingreen2 sentences1988(People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 785 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].) 1988(People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 785 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1988(People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 785 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].) 1988(People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 785 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colemangreen2 sentences1988(People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 785 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].) 1988(People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 375-376 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 119-120 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 757 P.2d 569 ]; People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 785 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 759 P.2d 1260 ].) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
California v. Trombetta
green
2 sentences2015Preservation of Defendant's Blood Alcohol Level Defendant moved under California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 and Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 to dismiss the case (or, alternatively, for an ameliorative instruction and an evidentiary hearing) because "the police violated [defendant's] due process rights by failing to obtain samples of his blood to determine his level of intoxication at the time of arrest." He asserts a blood sample may have supported an affirmative defense of intoxication. 2014Failure to Take a Blood Sample Defendant moved under California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 ] (Trombetta) to dismiss the case, or, in the *837 alternative, to have the trial court give an ameliorative instruction, because the police did not take a blood sample when they arrested him. | 3 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Burke
green
2 sentences2024“The plain language of subdivision 8 (c) of section 1385 applies only to an ‘enhancement,’ and the Three Strikes law is not an enhancement.” (People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237 , 244.) As such, section 1385 does not apply, and the court was not required to consider the ameliorative factors listed in section 1385, subdivision (c) when determining whether to dismiss Caguiat’s prior strikes. 2024“The plain language of subdivision 8 (c) of section 1385 applies only to an ‘enhancement,’ and the Three Strikes law is not an enhancement.” (People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237 , 244.) As such, section 1385 does not apply, and the court was not required to consider the ameliorative factors listed in section 1385, subdivision (c) when determining whether to dismiss Caguiat’s prior strikes. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Arizona v. Youngblood
green
1 sentence2015Preservation of Defendant's Blood Alcohol Level Defendant moved under California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 and Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 to dismiss the case (or, alternatively, for an ameliorative instruction and an evidentiary hearing) because "the police violated [defendant's] due process rights by failing to obtain samples of his blood to determine his level of intoxication at the time of arrest." He asserts a blood sample may have supported an affirmative defense of intoxication. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.