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 1989–2025 2 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. Bejasagreen2 sentences2021Judge Chan held a hearing on the matter and denied Hanley’s motion. 27 “In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevents the prosecution from using ‘statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.’ [Citation.] The court was concerned that, without these procedural safeguards, the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ of custodial interrogation might induce s 2021Judge Chan held a hearing on the matter and denied Hanley’s motion. 27 “In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevents the prosecution from using ‘statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.’ [Citation.] The court was concerned that, without these procedural safeguards, the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ of custodial interrogation might induce s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hanleygreen1 sentence1994It charged them as felonies. ( 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 342, fn. 2 .) The magistrate granted Hanley’s motion to strike one of the three prior convictions, and with only two prior convictions remaining, determined that the offenses charged were misdemeanors as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
Mendoyoma, Inc. v. County of Mendocinogreen2 sentences1989(Mendoyoma, Inc. v. County of Mendocino (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 873, 880-881 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 740 ].) Adherence to the Vossler/Hanley rule, however, would obviate the traditional burden of proof (by shifting the burden to the defendant), and is inconsistent with the rule precluding recovery based on speculative (or, as here, nonexistent) evidence. 1989(Mendoyoma, Inc. v. County of Mendocino (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 873, 880-881 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 740 ].) Adherence to the Vossler/Hanley rule, however, would obviate the traditional burden of proof (by shifting the burden to the defendant), and is inconsistent with the rule precluding recovery based on speculative (or, as here, nonexistent) evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.green2 sentences1989Co., supra, 67 Cal.App.3d 451, 469-470 [punitive damage award in excess of 15 percent of net worth reversed as excessive]; Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 991, 1011-1012 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 49 A.L.R.4th 1125 ] [punitive damage award of 35 percent of net worth reversed as excessive].) Finally, our adherence to Alhino and rejection of Vossler/Hanley rule is consonant with the traditional allocation of the burden of proof. 1989Co., supra, 67 Cal.App.3d 451, 469-470 [punitive damage award in excess of 15 percent of net worth reversed as excessive]; Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 991, 1011-1012 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 49 A.L.R.4th 1125 ] [punitive damage award of 35 percent of net worth reversed as excessive].) Finally, our adherence to Alhino and rejection of Vossler/Hanley rule is consonant with the traditional allocation of the burden of proof. | 1 | 1 |
Little v. Stuyvesant Life Ins. Co.green1 sentence1989Co., supra, 67 Cal.App.3d 451, 469-470 [punitive damage award in excess of 15 percent of net worth reversed as excessive]; Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 991, 1011-1012 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 49 A.L.R.4th 1125 ] [punitive damage award of 35 percent of net worth reversed as excessive].) Finally, our adherence to Alhino and rejection of Vossler/Hanley rule is consonant with the traditional allocation of the burden of proof. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pulliam v. Layton
green
1 sentence2025In addressing lien priority, the creditors’ trial brief argued their judgments had priority over Hanley’s purported attorney’s lien because Hanley represented Clunies A and Clunies E individually, and “[n]either Clunies A nor Clunies E prevailed individually in the civil action.” Further, even if Hanley’s argument were accurate, we have discretion to address the creditors’ arguments because “‘the facts are not disputed and [their arguments] merely raise[] . . . new question[s] of law.’” (Estate of Layton (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1337 , 1339-1340, fn.4.) To clarify, our ruling does not mean the cr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2021Judge Chan held a hearing on the matter and denied Hanley’s motion. 27 “In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevents the prosecution from using ‘statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.’ [Citation.] The court was concerned that, without these procedural safeguards, the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ of custodial interrogation might induce s | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Mearns
green
1 sentence2015Nothing in the record indicates that Hanley's defense theory was anything but an objectively reasonable tactical decision. 7 amount ordered." (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1125 ; People v. Mearns, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 499 .) The record in this case presents no evidence of any victim's economic losses, yet the court ordered $10,000 in victim restitution. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Carbajal
green
1 sentence2015Nothing in the record indicates that Hanley's defense theory was anything but an objectively reasonable tactical decision. 7 amount ordered." (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1125 ; People v. Mearns, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 499 .) The record in this case presents no evidence of any victim's economic losses, yet the court ordered $10,000 in victim restitution. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence1989Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d 910, 927-928 .) The Vossler/Hanley rule permits consideration of this component to be ignored by the fact finder. 14 Moreover, the Vossler/Hanley rule frustrates meaningful appellate review of punitive damage awards (i.e., of whether the award was “grossly disproportionate”), since the absence of evidence of net worth precludes an appellate court from deciding whether an award might, for example, bankrupt the defendant. | 1 | 1989–1989 |