Wagner motion (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Wagner motion in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. McIntyregreen
calctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
1 sentence

1990(People v. McIntyre, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 558, fn. 13 .) This clearly contravenes the requirement a defendant affirmatively allege facts supporting the timeliness of his motion.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Blain v. Doctor's Co. green
calctapp · 1990
1 sentence

2025(See Blain v. Doctor’s Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1067 .) Disposition The judgment is affirmed.

12025–2025
People v. Delgadillo green
cal · 2022
1 sentence

2023We granted the motion to augment and denied the request for dismissal without prejudice to the Attorney 3 On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to the procedure set forth in Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pages 231-232.

12023–2023
People v. Wende green
cal · 1979
2 sentences

2016Huffman, J., and McDonald, J., concurred. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On appeal, Wagner’s counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ]; Wagner filed his own supplemental brief, and we directed the Attorney General to file a respondent’s brief.

2016Huffman, J., and McDonald, J., concurred. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On appeal, Wagner’s counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ]; Wagner filed his own supplemental brief, and we directed the Attorney General to file a respondent’s brief.

12016–2016
People v. Sumstine green
cal · 1984
1 sentence

1990The first was recognized by the court in Wagner, when it addressed a similar situation in the defendant’s characterization of his collateral attack as a motion to dismiss: “From the principles set forth in Ronald E. and Sumstine [People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal.3d 909 ], we conclude that for purposes of determining waiver of entitlement to challenge the 1983 NGI plea, defendant Wagner’s motion to dismiss is identical in substance and purpose to the untimely habeas corpus challenge in Ronald E. . . . . [¶] To characterize his challenge as a motion to dismiss rather than a habeas corpus petitio

11990–1990
Clark v. Marsh green
cadc · 1981
2 sentences

1989Cir. 1981) 665 F.2d 1168 [ 214 App.D.C. 350 ].) Applying Wagner’s restrictive approach in every case would preclude the trier of fact from considering whether an employee had a reasonable justification for remaining on the job despite the employer’s allegedly intolerable actions. 5 But while the Wagner standard may be too rigid, sound policy requires that there be a limit beyond which claims such as that of plaintiff here may not be asserted.

1989Cir. 1981) 665 F.2d 1168 [ 214 App.D.C. 350 ].) Applying Wagner’s restrictive approach in every case would preclude the trier of fact from considering whether an employee had a reasonable justification for remaining on the job despite the employer’s allegedly intolerable actions. 5 But while the Wagner standard may be too rigid, sound policy requires that there be a limit beyond which claims such as that of plaintiff here may not be asserted.

11989–1989

Where else courts name it

PA 7 (2016–2024) CA 5 (1989–2025) HI 3 (2023–2025) NE 3 (2002–2025) IL 2 (1986–2021) AL 2 (2024–2024) IN 2 (1986–1993) OH 2 (1996–2024) TX 2 (2023–2025) MN 2 (1991–1998) AK 2 (1988–2015) NY 2 (1959–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check