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 1 courts 1981–2026 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. Vangeldergreen1 sentence2026(People v. Vangelder (2013) 58 Cal.4th 1, 5, fn. 1 .) 4. | 1 | 1 |
Manriquez v. Gourleygreen2 sentences2019(See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234 [observation period satisfied where officers could perceive whether subject ate, drank, smoked, vomited or regurgitated, even if officer did not maintain direct visual contact the entire time].) Finally, since we have concluded substantial evidence supports the superior court's finding that Officer White complied with Title 17, we also conclude the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining the results of the chemical breath test were admissible.3 (See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1232 ; Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4t 2019(See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234 [observation period satisfied where officers could perceive whether subject ate, drank, smoked, vomited or regurgitated, even if officer did not maintain direct visual contact the entire time].) Finally, since we have concluded substantial evidence supports the superior court's finding that Officer White complied with Title 17, we also conclude the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining the results of the chemical breath test were admissible.3 (See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1232 ; Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
Buchanan v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences1981Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c); McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593, 599-601 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 49 ]; Buchanan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 293, 298, fn. 3 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 557 ].) But this omission is without legal consequence on this appeal as here there is no significant factual dispute between the parties regarding what happened with respect to the administration of the chemical breath test to petitioner. 1981Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c); McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593, 599-601 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 49 ]; Buchanan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 293, 298, fn. 3 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 557 ].) But this omission is without legal consequence on this appeal as here there is no significant factual dispute between the parties regarding what happened with respect to the administration of the chemical breath test to petitioner. | 1 | 1 |
McConville v. Alexisgreen2 sentences1981Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c); McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593, 599-601 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 49 ]; Buchanan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 293, 298, fn. 3 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 557 ].) But this omission is without legal consequence on this appeal as here there is no significant factual dispute between the parties regarding what happened with respect to the administration of the chemical breath test to petitioner. 1981Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c); McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593, 599-601 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 49 ]; Buchanan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 293, 298, fn. 3 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 557 ].) But this omission is without legal consequence on this appeal as here there is no significant factual dispute between the parties regarding what happened with respect to the administration of the chemical breath test to petitioner. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Komizu v. Gourely
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 947 .) We also point out that the concurring opinion by Justice Liu in Coffey found circumstantial evidence alone “do[es] not generally establish that it is more likely a driver’s BAC is 0.08 percent .… [S]igns of impairment do not generally have a tendency in reason to prove a BAC of 0.08 percent or greater.” (Coffey, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1218 .) Similarly, in Komizu v. Gourley (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 1001 , while the trial court found the DMV did not err when it relied on an alcohol analysis report in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2026(People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal.4th 408, 417 .) F. Conclusion In sum, the trial court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence showing Myers rebutted the presumption that the chemical breath test results were reliable. 2026(People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal.4th 408, 417 .) F. Conclusion In sum, the trial court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence showing Myers rebutted the presumption that the chemical breath test results were reliable. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
The People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 947 .) We also point out that the concurring opinion by Justice Liu in Coffey found circumstantial evidence alone “do[es] not generally establish that it is more likely a driver’s BAC is 0.08 percent .… [S]igns of impairment do not generally have a tendency in reason to prove a BAC of 0.08 percent or greater.” (Coffey, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1218 .) Similarly, in Komizu v. Gourley (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 1001 , while the trial court found the DMV did not err when it relied on an alcohol analysis report in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Coffey v. Shiomoto
green
2 sentences2026Merits The DMV cites Coffey, supra, 60 Cal.4th 1198 to support its view that the chemical breath test results should be considered in conjunction with the PAS test results and behavioral evidence notwithstanding a title 17 violation. 2026Merits The DMV cites Coffey, supra, 60 Cal.4th 1198 to support its view that the chemical breath test results should be considered in conjunction with the PAS test results and behavioral evidence notwithstanding a title 17 violation. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Selivanov
green
1 sentence2024And we conclude 1 As explained below, grand theft by embezzlement is a “‘wobbler’”—a crime that ‘‘‘in the trial court’s discretion, may be sentenced as either a felony or a misdemeanor.’” (People v. Selivanov (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 726, 758 .) 2 Bell also challenges the imposition of a condition prohibiting her from consuming alcohol or being present at an establishment that sells primarily alcoholic beverages. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Beltran
green
1 sentence2023Subsequent tests, administered 30 minutes later, revealed his blood-alcohol level had risen to 0.10 percent. ( Beltran, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 238-239.) Defendant argues that, just as in Beltran, his blood alcohol content may have been rising at the time the tests were taken. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2019(See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234 [observation period satisfied where officers could perceive whether subject ate, drank, smoked, vomited or regurgitated, even if officer did not maintain direct visual contact the entire time].) Finally, since we have concluded substantial evidence supports the superior court's finding that Officer White complied with Title 17, we also conclude the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining the results of the chemical breath test were admissible.3 (See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1232 ; Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4t 2019(See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234 [observation period satisfied where officers could perceive whether subject ate, drank, smoked, vomited or regurgitated, even if officer did not maintain direct visual contact the entire time].) Finally, since we have concluded substantial evidence supports the superior court's finding that Officer White complied with Title 17, we also conclude the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining the results of the chemical breath test were admissible.3 (See Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1232 ; Davenport, supra, 6 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.