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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Toddgreen2 sentences1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl 1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl | 1 | 1 |
People v. Califanogreen2 sentences1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl 1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl | 1 | 1 |
Bertero v. National General Corp.green2 sentences1990(Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 184 , 529 P.2d 608 , 65 A.L.R.3d 878 ].) The bringing of a colorable claim is not actionable; plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must prove that the prior action was brought without probable cause and was pursued to a legal termination in plaintiff’s favor. 1990(Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 184 , 529 P.2d 608 , 65 A.L.R.3d 878 ].) The bringing of a colorable claim is not actionable; plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must prove that the prior action was brought without probable cause and was pursued to a legal termination in plaintiff’s favor. | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Hansengreen2 sentences1988(Cf. Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 971 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 604 ] [“To apply a time limitation beyond which the court lacks power so to act would needlessly burden the courts and the litigants with plenary trials that were otherwise capable of summary resolution. 1988(Cf. Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 971 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 604 ] [“To apply a time limitation beyond which the court lacks power so to act would needlessly burden the courts and the litigants with plenary trials that were otherwise capable of summary resolution. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodsgreen2 sentences1957In People v. Woods, 35 Cal.2d 504, 509 [ 218 P.2d 981 ], it is said: “The offense charged in count one, the violation of subdivision 3 of section 337a, is committed when money is received as a wager on a race. 1957In People v. Woods, 35 Cal.2d 504, 509 [ 218 P.2d 981 ], it is said: “The offense charged in count one, the violation of subdivision 3 of section 337a, is committed when money is received as a wager on a race. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.
green
1 sentence2022In HMS Capital, Inc., for example, the court noted that the malicious prosecution defendant “took no depositions, promulgated only one set of form interrogatories, and refused to dismiss [the underlying action] unless [the 17 plaintiff] paid it $25,000,” and it found those facts supported the conclusion that the defendant “was simply trying to squeeze a settlement from [the plaintiff] on a baseless case, and hence evidence of malice.” (HMS Capital, Inc., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 218 .) There is no similar evidence of Timm’s actions during the underlying litigation that suggests he pursued | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Lucero
green
2 sentences1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl 1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Apodaca
green
2 sentences1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl 1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Boulad
green
2 sentences1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl 1992(People v. Boulad (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 118 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] [accomplices were arrested, put in adjoining cells and had their conversation secretly recorded by the police]; People v. Apodaca (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 656 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 782 ] [jail conversation between defendant and visitor secretly recorded]; People v. Califano (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 476, 482 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] [coperpetrator arrestees put in police interview room with hidden microphone]; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [hidden tape-recorded conversation of suspects in back of police car]; Peopl | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Banks
neutral
2 sentences1957In support of the baseless claim that there was no evidence that the races actually were run, counsel rely upon the single case of People v. Banks, 39 Cal.App.2d 164 [ 102 P.2d 818 ], which makes no such holding and which has been repeatedly criticized by this court, also disapproved by the Supreme Court. 1957In support of the baseless claim that there was no evidence that the races actually were run, counsel rely upon the single case of People v. Banks, 39 Cal.App.2d 164 [ 102 P.2d 818 ], which makes no such holding and which has been repeatedly criticized by this court, also disapproved by the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.