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 1965–2024 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. Pruntygreen2 sentences2024(See, e.g., Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 73 [listing discernible hierarchy, predictable meeting schedules, fixed membership, and codified rules as hallmarks of formally organized groups].) Interpreting “organized” to require a showing that a group must possess these characteristics of a formal organization would directly contradict the language of section 186.22(f) specifying that a criminal street gang may be “formal or informal.” Another division of this court 21 recently came to the same conclusion, relying on the Legislature’s retention of the “formal or informal” modifying language to 2024(See, e.g., Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 73 [listing discernible hierarchy, predictable meeting schedules, fixed membership, and codified rules as hallmarks of formally organized groups].) Interpreting “organized” to require a showing that a group must possess these characteristics of a formal organization would directly contradict the language of section 186.22(f) specifying that a criminal street gang may be “formal or informal.” Another division of this court 21 recently came to the same conclusion, relying on the Legislature’s retention of the “formal or informal” modifying language to | 1 | 1 |
In Re Daniel G.green2 sentences1997(In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1213-1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ].) Thus, although circumstances did not justify the return of dependent children to their parent at the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22), the court, in its discretion, could extend the reunification period beyond the statutorily authorized 18 months. 1997(In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1213-1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ].) Thus, although circumstances did not justify the return of dependent children to their parent at the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22), the court, in its discretion, could extend the reunification period beyond the statutorily authorized 18 months. | 1 | 1 |
Automotriz Del Golfo De California v. Resnickgreen2 sentences1965(Automotriz etc. De California v. Resnick, 47 Cal.2d 792, 796 [ 306 P.2d 1 , 63 A.L.R.2d 1042 ].) Numerous cases hold that the above element is established upon a showing of close ownership and control of the entire organizational framework. 1965(Automotriz etc. De California v. Resnick, 47 Cal.2d 792, 796 [ 306 P.2d 1 , 63 A.L.R.2d 1042 ].) Numerous cases hold that the above element is established upon a showing of close ownership and control of the entire organizational framework. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
green
1 sentence2023Moran’s Claimed “Errors” in the Trial Court’s Ruling Despite the fact that our review is de novo and the fact that “we review [the trial court’s] ruling, not its reasoning” (Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 184, 204 ), Moran has chosen to organize the much of the argument section of his opening brief by picking apart alleged “errors” made by the trial court. 15 This is unhelpful as an organizational principle in the instant procedural context, and most of the points raised are either irrelevant or subsumed by our prior discussion. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
California-Nevada Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. St. Luke's United Methodist Church
green
1 sentence2007Rather, for the California-Nevada court, the analysis of the church property dispute was a relatively straight-forward trust problem: In 1948, a local Methodist church incorporated with the express purpose of holding the church property in trust for benefit of the local church, albeit also with the purpose of maintaining a local church "as a part of and affiliated with the Methodist Denomination." ( California-Nevada, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 757-758, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 .) When an (unspecified) doctrinal dispute arose in the United Methodist Church in 1999 and 2000, the Methodist bishop a | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.
green
2 sentences1965(Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 825 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 806 ].) In the instant proceeding, as already noted, appellants were the sole shareholders, officers and directors of the corporation. 1965(Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 825 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 806 ].) In the instant proceeding, as already noted, appellants were the sole shareholders, officers and directors of the corporation. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.