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 2002–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schlup v. Delored1 sentence2016“It is a paradigmatic abuse of discretion for a court to base its judgment on an erroneous view of the law.” (Schlup v. Delo (1995) 513 U.S. 298, 333 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.).) The People further claim that defendant failed to establish the requisite good cause for vacating any assessment. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Horngreen1 sentence2002(See People v. Horn, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 709 [lack of objection to sentencing by different judge relevant in determining existence of Arbuckle rights].) 4 The People further claim that even if defendant expected Judge Ball to sentence him, Arbuckle is still inapplicable. | 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. Standish
green
1 sentence2026The People’s view is consistent with the fact that “ ‘the word “shall” . . . is ordinarily deemed mandatory and “may” permissive.’ ” (Standish, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 869 .) However, as the Court of Appeal recognized, “ ‘[m]ay’ is a term that also refers to an expression of possibility.” (Kowalczyk, supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 684, citing Black’s Law Dict. (11th ed. 2019) 18 In re KOWALCZYK Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Willis
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Willis, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 36-37 [People’s burden].) DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Borja
green
2 sentences2008The People further claim that the trial court violated this court’s decision in People v. Borja (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 481 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 ] (Borja), which involves a trial court’s authority to resentence a defendant in order to avoid immigration consequences. 2008The People further claim that the trial court violated this court’s decision in People v. Borja (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 481 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 ] (Borja), which involves a trial court’s authority to resentence a defendant in order to avoid immigration consequences. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2002In support of this claim, the *1315 People cite People v. Dunn (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 572 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 273 ] (Dunn). 2002In support of this claim, the *1315 People cite People v. Dunn (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 572 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 273 ] (Dunn). | 1 | 2002–2002 |