5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Andersongreen1 sentence2021(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ; People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 [in determining whether instructional error affected defendant’s “substantial rights” under § 1259, “[t]he question is whether the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice under [Watson]”].) In “consider[ing] the jury charge as a whole” (Campos, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1237 ), there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have believed it could convict appellant under a reduced standard of proof, or that the outcome would have been more favorable to appellant absent the error. | 1 | 1 |
Apple Valley Unified School District v. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.green2 sentences2012The court in that case further states that when a plaintiff asserts such a reduced requirement of diligence, because of a fiduciary relationship with the defendant, the plaintiff is still “required to establish facts sufficient to show that he made an actual discovery of hitherto unknown information within two years before the filing of the action in order to satisfy the duty of diligence and to thereby come within the limitations period. [Citations.] However, plaintiff does have a duty to investigate even where a fiduciary relationship exists when ‘he has notice of facts sufficient to arouse 2012The court in that case further states that when a plaintiff asserts such a reduced requirement of diligence, because of a fiduciary relationship with the defendant, the plaintiff is still “required to establish facts sufficient to show that he made an actual discovery of hitherto unknown information within two years before the filing of the action in order to satisfy the duty of diligence and to thereby come within the limitations period. [Citations.] However, plaintiff does have a duty to investigate even where a fiduciary relationship exists when ‘he has notice of facts sufficient to arouse | 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. Campos
green
1 sentence2021(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ; People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 [in determining whether instructional error affected defendant’s “substantial rights” under § 1259, “[t]he question is whether the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice under [Watson]”].) In “consider[ing] the jury charge as a whole” (Campos, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1237 ), there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have believed it could convict appellant under a reduced standard of proof, or that the outcome would have been more favorable to appellant absent the error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2021(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ; People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 [in determining whether instructional error affected defendant’s “substantial rights” under § 1259, “[t]he question is whether the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice under [Watson]”].) In “consider[ing] the jury charge as a whole” (Campos, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1237 ), there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have believed it could convict appellant under a reduced standard of proof, or that the outcome would have been more favorable to appellant absent the error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence2013Exchange, supra, at p. 751 , fn. omitted.) Respondent is correct that due process principles did not preclude the trial court from utilizing the statistical methodology to determine damages. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Washington
green
1 sentence1992In a forfeiture proceeding the People get the benefit of a reduced standard of proof (§ 11488.4, subd. (i)), a nonunanimous jury (People v. Washington, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 917 ) and, as we have just held, face no impediment from the ex post facto provisions of the state or federal Constitutions. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Fare v. Tony C.
green
1 sentence1984Scott K. ’s reliance on In re Tony C., supra, 21 Cal.3d 888 dictates a negative answer to the second question. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.