5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Broussardgreen2 sentences2009(See People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1075 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 278 , 856 P.2d 1134 ].) The Senate floor analysis for Senate Bill No. 218 of 2005 indicates that the procedures to protect current caregivers, now set out in section 366.26, subdivision (n), were designed to address concerns arising during the more delayed “period between termination of parental rights and the granting of a petition for adoption,” as distinguished from the more expedited period between voluntary relinquishment and the granting of a petition for adoption. 2009(See People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1075 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 278 , 856 P.2d 1134 ].) The Senate floor analysis for Senate Bill No. 218 of 2005 indicates that the procedures to protect current caregivers, now set out in section 366.26, subdivision (n), were designed to address concerns arising during the more delayed “period between termination of parental rights and the granting of a petition for adoption,” as distinguished from the more expedited period between voluntary relinquishment and the granting of a petition for adoption. | 2 | 2 |
Altaville Drug Store, Inc. v. Employment Development Departmentgreen2 sentences2006(Altaville Drug Store, Inc. v. Employment Development Department (1988) 44 Cal.3d 231, 238 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 746 P.2d 871 ].) We find particularly instructive a Senate Floor analysis prepared by the Senate Rules Committee for introduction of the 1993 bill that led to the initial enactment of the statute that has since been renumbered as section 384. 2006(Altaville Drug Store, Inc. v. Employment Development Department (1988) 44 Cal.3d 231, 238 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 746 P.2d 871 ].) We find particularly instructive a Senate Floor analysis prepared by the Senate Rules Committee for introduction of the 1993 bill that led to the initial enactment of the statute that has since been renumbered as section 384. | 1 | 1 |
Jevne v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005(Jevne v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 935, 948 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 , 111 P.3d 954 ].) A Senate floor analysis of Bill No. 83 states that it “[r]equires the court to appoint counsel to investigate and, if appropriate, file a motion for post-conviction DNA testing if the convicted person is indigent, the request contains the required information, and counsel has not been previously *323 appointed. 2005(Jevne v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 935, 948 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 , 111 P.3d 954 ].) A Senate floor analysis of Bill No. 83 states that it “[r]equires the court to appoint counsel to investigate and, if appropriate, file a motion for post-conviction DNA testing if the convicted person is indigent, the request contains the required information, and counsel has not been previously *323 appointed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Vitamin Cases
green
2 sentences2008It states the Legislature intended “to ensure that the unpaid residuals in class action litigation are distributed, to the extent possible, in a manner designed either to further the purposes of the underlying causes of action, or to promote justice for all Californians. . . .” (§ 384, subd. (a).) The origin of this statement of legislative intent was discussed in two cases that construed section 384 in the context of objections to proposed settlements, In re Microsoft I-V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 660 ] (Microsoft I-V) and In re Vitamin Cases, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th 82 2006(Vitamin Cases, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 828 , citing Sen. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
In Re Microsoft I-V Cases
green
2 sentences2008It states the Legislature intended “to ensure that the unpaid residuals in class action litigation are distributed, to the extent possible, in a manner designed either to further the purposes of the underlying causes of action, or to promote justice for all Californians. . . .” (§ 384, subd. (a).) The origin of this statement of legislative intent was discussed in two cases that construed section 384 in the context of objections to proposed settlements, In re Microsoft I-V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 660 ] (Microsoft I-V) and In re Vitamin Cases, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th 82 2008It states the Legislature intended “to ensure that the unpaid residuals in class action litigation are distributed, to the extent possible, in a manner designed either to further the purposes of the underlying causes of action, or to promote justice for all Californians. . . .” (§ 384, subd. (a).) The origin of this statement of legislative intent was discussed in two cases that construed section 384 in the context of objections to proposed settlements, In re Microsoft I-V Cases (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 706 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 660 ] (Microsoft I-V) and In re Vitamin Cases, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th 82 | 1 | 2008–2008 |