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 1987–2002 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. William O. Trigggreen1 sentence1993(U.S. v. Cummins, supra, 920 F.2d at p. 501 .) Finally, we agree with the observation that this test places police “under the apprehension that their actions—which often require the exercise of great discretion—would be subject to misinterpretation months later in the antiseptic atmosphere of the courtroom.” (U.S. v. Trigg, supra, 878 F.2d at p. 1042 (conc. opn. by Ripple, J.).) *930 Turning to the facts here, it is undisputed that Officer Becerra observed Lucero commit a moving traffic violation. | 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. Meredith
green
2 sentences2002(Id. at p. 687.) Defendant argues that under the rule declared in People v. Meredith, supra, 29 Cal.3d 682 , the trial court should not have admitted evidence of Sims’s collaboration in the testing of the dried stain. 1992Under both Meredith and Fairbank, “an observation by defense counsel or his investigator, which is the product of a privileged communication, may not be admitted unless the defense by altering or removing physical evidence has precluded the prosecution from making that same observation. . . .” (People v. Meredith, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 686 .) Here, the swab in question is being divided in half. | 3 | 1987–2002 |
United States v. Gregory Lynn Cummins, United States of America v. Timothy Akins, A/K/A Michael Mayfield
green
1 sentence1993(U.S. v. Cummins, supra, 920 F.2d at p. 501 .) Finally, we agree with the observation that this test places police “under the apprehension that their actions—which often require the exercise of great discretion—would be subject to misinterpretation months later in the antiseptic atmosphere of the courtroom.” (U.S. v. Trigg, supra, 878 F.2d at p. 1042 (conc. opn. by Ripple, J.).) *930 Turning to the facts here, it is undisputed that Officer Becerra observed Lucero commit a moving traffic violation. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988In addressing the first consideration, I begin with the observation that the requirement of the impossibility of dual compliance is strictly construed: the federal-state conflict must be actual and unavoidable, not merely possible (Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc. (1973) 411 U.S. 325, 336-337 ). 1988In addressing the first consideration, I begin with the observation that the requirement of the impossibility of dual compliance is strictly construed: the federal-state conflict must be actual and unavoidable, not merely possible ( Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc. (1973) 411 U.S. 325, 336-337 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.