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 1982–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Melvin L. Johnson v. William Love, Acting Superintendent the Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2015(Cf. Johnson v. Love (3d Cir. 1994) 40 F.3d 658, 665-667 [finding the trial court erred in ruling that no prima facie case existed].) Notably, Justice Liu does not claim that the record here supported any inference or suspicion of discrimination. 2015(Cf. Johnson v. Love (3d Cir. 1994) 40 F.3d 658, 665-667 [finding the trial court erred in ruling that no prima facie case existed].) Notably, Justice Liu does not claim that the record here supported any inference or suspicion of discrimination. | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when 2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when 2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe | 1 | 1 |
Brawner v. Stategreen2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when 2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Californiagreen2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when 2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guerragreen2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when 2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nelsen v. City of Gridley
green
2 sentences1982Whether this section was intended to apply to land publicly held is in dispute, as Nelsett v. City of Gridley (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 87 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 757 ], held it was not (see Van Alstyne, Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) § 3.49, pp. 268-270, in accord); while several other appellate courts have concluded to the contrary. 1982Whether this section was intended to apply to land publicly held is in dispute, as Nelsett v. City of Gridley (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 87 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 757 ], held it was not (see Van Alstyne, Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) § 3.49, pp. 268-270, in accord); while several other appellate courts have concluded to the contrary. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe 2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2015(People v. Hernandez (N.Y. 1990) 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” (Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103 ; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth . . . in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challenge had already failed when 2015(People v. Hernandez (1990) 75 N.Y.2d 350 [ 552 N.E.2d 621 , 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87 ]; Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 378 (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Accordingly, as we have previously explained, Hernandez has no application where, as here, the trial court “expressly found that a prima facie case of discrimination was not established.” ( Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1103; accord, State v. Allen (La. 2005) 913 So.2d 788, 802 [“the defendant’s reliance upon the rule set forth ... in Hernandez is misplaced,” since “it is obvious from the district court’s ruling that the defense’s Batson challe | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cordova v. 21st Century Insurance
green
2 sentences2005Co. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 89 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 ] (Cordova). 14 The Cordova court addressed and expressly rejected the contention that the Legislature had any intent at all, in enacting section 340.9, to bar an insured’s reliance upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2005Co. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 89 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 ] (Cordova). 14 The Cordova court addressed and expressly rejected the contention that the Legislature had any intent at all, in enacting section 340.9, to bar an insured’s reliance upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Arbee
green
1 sentence1989(People v. Arbee, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 356 ; People v. Berry, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 198 .) C. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Berry
green
1 sentence1989(People v. Arbee, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 356 ; People v. Berry, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 198 .) C. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.