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 1994–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2016The court took issue with defendant’s representation that, at the time he negotiated his plea, he “was informed by his attorney and the paperwork from the court,” that he could later apply for section 1203.4 relief, finding the record at the time of the plea revealed the parties “contemplated a state prison sentence for which no [section] 1203.4 relief would have been available,” and “defendant agreed[] to plead to the charge knowing that he was facing a state prison sentence.” With regard to the issue of retroactivity of statutory amendments made after entry of the plea, the court’s order ide | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Bowrongreen2 sentences1994(Parker v. Bowron (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 351 [ 254 P.2d 6 ].) In making such contention, Pillsbury confuses lack of capacity to sue with lack of right to sue. “[T]he question of standing to sue is different from that of capacity. 1994(Parker v. Bowron (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 351 [ 254 P.2d 6 ].) In making such contention, Pillsbury confuses lack of capacity to sue with lack of right to sue. “[T]he question of standing to sue is different from that of capacity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fields
green
2 sentences2022An attorney “ ‘may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to “Chesterfieldian politeness.” ’ ” (People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 363 .) And as discussed above, counsel’s characterization of the law was correct. 2021An attorney “ ‘may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to “Chesterfieldian politeness.” ’ ” (People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 363 .) And as discussed above, counsel’s characterization of the law was correct. 16 Defendants argue a new trial is warranted on the issue of damages because Chavez’s independent reverse engineering of the SoCal algorithm vitiated some of SoCal’s damages by reducing the period during which the algorithm was entitled to protection. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2021We conclude that the “single reference” to alleged perjury (People v. Ellis, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 540 ) did not rise to the level of “ ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods’ ” that amounted to misconduct (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 ), and the prosecutor’s other questions — about defendant’s exaggerated or false MMPI-2 responses and misrepresentation and forgery in her rental application — were proper subjects for cross-examination based on evidence before the jury. 7. 2021“Prosecutors tread on dangerous ground, however, when they resort to epithets to drive home the falsity of defense evidence.” (People v. Ellis (1966) 65 Cal.2d 529, 539 .) Characterizing defendant as a liar and perjurer based on an obscene pager code was questionable; defendant’s testimony on cross-examination, however, raised the possibility that she attempted to falsely deny responsibility for writing a highly inculpatory note to her ex-husband. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Friend
green
1 sentence2021We conclude that the “single reference” to alleged perjury (People v. Ellis, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 540 ) did not rise to the level of “ ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods’ ” that amounted to misconduct (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 ), and the prosecutor’s other questions — about defendant’s exaggerated or false MMPI-2 responses and misrepresentation and forgery in her rental application — were proper subjects for cross-examination based on evidence before the jury. 7. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Arata
green
1 sentence2016The court took issue with defendant’s representation that, at the time he negotiated his plea, he “was informed by his attorney and the paperwork from the court,” that he could later apply for section 1203.4 relief, finding the record at the time of the plea revealed the parties “contemplated a state prison sentence for which no [section] 1203.4 relief would have been available,” and “defendant agreed[] to plead to the charge knowing that he was facing a state prison sentence.” With regard to the issue of retroactivity of statutory amendments made after entry of the plea, the court’s order ide | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Acuna
green
1 sentence2016The court took issue with defendant’s representation that, at the time he negotiated his plea, he “was informed by his attorney and the paperwork from the court,” that he could later apply for section 1203.4 relief, finding the record at the time of the plea revealed the parties “contemplated a state prison sentence for which no [section] 1203.4 relief would have been available,” and “defendant agreed[] to plead to the charge knowing that he was facing a state prison sentence.” With regard to the issue of retroactivity of statutory amendments made after entry of the plea, the court’s order ide | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.