5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re JNgreen1 sentence2014(Cf. In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022 [in juvenile dependency proceedings “‘Proof … must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section 300’ at the jurisdiction hearing” (italics added)]; People v. Fiscalini (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1639, 1644, fn. 5 [review of denial of Penal Code section 1538.5 suppression motion is limited to evidence before the court at the suppression motion hearing].) But even assuming for the sake of argument that we may view the record as containing evidence that appellant thought he was being electronically monitored, Carvalho | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fiscalinigreen1 sentence2014(Cf. In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022 [in juvenile dependency proceedings “‘Proof … must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section 300’ at the jurisdiction hearing” (italics added)]; People v. Fiscalini (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1639, 1644, fn. 5 [review of denial of Penal Code section 1538.5 suppression motion is limited to evidence before the court at the suppression motion hearing].) But even assuming for the sake of argument that we may view the record as containing evidence that appellant thought he was being electronically monitored, Carvalho | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boyettegreen2 sentences2012(People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 436 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544 , 58 P.3d 391 ].) These safeguards ensured there were no violations of Spence’s rights to a presumption of innocence, to his Miranda protections, or to present a suppression motion and his defense. 2012(People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 436 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544 , 58 P.3d 391 ].) These safeguards ensured there were no violations of Spence’s rights to a presumption of innocence, to his Miranda protections, or to present a suppression motion and his defense. | 1 | 1 |
McConville v. Alexisgreen2 sentences1991(McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593, 601 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 49 ]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 1219.2, subd. (a).) However, the record of the suppression motion hearing contains no evidence indicating the police requested a second void or Fiscalini refused to give a second urine sample. 1991(McConville v. Alexis (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593, 601 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 49 ]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 1219.2, subd. (a).) However, the record of the suppression motion hearing contains no evidence indicating the police requested a second void or Fiscalini refused to give a second urine sample. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Ct. of Orange Cty.green2 sentences1981(See People v. Superior Court (Hulbert) (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 407, 417-419 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 497 ].) At the suppression motion hearing in the trial court, all parties recognized that the word “Columbian” was used by defendant and understood by the offices to refer to marijuana. 1981(See People v. Superior Court (Hulbert) (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 407, 417-419 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 497 ].) At the suppression motion hearing in the trial court, all parties recognized that the word “Columbian” was used by defendant and understood by the offices to refer to marijuana. | 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. Gallegos
green
1 sentence2013(U.S. Const., 4th Amend. .…)” (People v. Gallegos (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 612, 622 .) Appellant contends the search of his backpack was constitutionally unreasonable. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Boyer
red
1 sentence2012Because we do not find there was any constitutional or evidentiary error, we need not discuss the standard for measuring the harmfulness or prejudice resulting from any such error. ( Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th 412, 464 .) Ill HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS TO EXPERT DOCTOR Spence next contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it permitted the prosecutor to ask, over his objection, an improper hypothetical question of the child abuse expert physician. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Schmerber v. California
green
1 sentence1991Thus, our review is limited to the evidence before the court at the suppression motion hearing. 6 Despite the legality in certain circumstances under Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. 757 , of forcibly removing a blood sample under appropriate medical procedures from a driver without his consent, the Legislature “recognized that ‘such an episode remains an unpleasant, undignified and undesirable one.’ [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 77 .) In enacting the implied consent law “the Legislature sought to obviate these consequences for the driv | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence1991Thus, our review is limited to the evidence before the court at the suppression motion hearing. 6 Despite the legality in certain circumstances under Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. 757 , of forcibly removing a blood sample under appropriate medical procedures from a driver without his consent, the Legislature “recognized that ‘such an episode remains an unpleasant, undignified and undesirable one.’ [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 77 .) In enacting the implied consent law “the Legislature sought to obviate these consequences for the driv | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.