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 1 courts 2005–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Almendarez-Torres v. United Statesred2 sentences2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm 2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm | 2 | 2 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm 2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm | 2 | 2 |
Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Moralesgreen1 sentence2021(Walton II v. Dunn-Williams (Oct. 7, 2019, C087424) [nonpub. opn.].) We warned Walton that, due in part to concerns for our own “independence and unbiased decisionmaking,” he was “not entitled to special treatment by this court even though he is representing himself.” (Ibid.) Here, though the record on appeal is limited, it is adequate for our review of Walton’s claim, as both the order complained-of, and an illuminating minute order from 3 the court trial, are in the appellate record.2 (Cf. Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 933 [“While a record of the hearing would h | 1 | 1 |
Denham v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005The record shows the real dispute was between Drake and Walton and Wal-Mart. “ ‘Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) The court’s finding as to Brookfield does not qualify as an abuse of discretion. *626 DISPOSITION The order is reversed insofar as it denies Drake and Walton’s motion for attorney fees under section 1021.5 from Wal-Mart. 2005The record shows the real dispute was between Drake and Walton and Wal-Mart. “ ‘Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) The court’s finding as to Brookfield does not qualify as an abuse of discretion. *626 DISPOSITION The order is reversed insofar as it denies Drake and Walton’s motion for attorney fees under section 1021.5 from Wal-Mart. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Booker
green
2 sentences2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm 2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm 2007(Compare Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 244-245, 118 S.Ct. 1219 ; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 487, fn. 13 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 .) Similarly, in Almendarez-Torres , the court suggested that the federal sentencing guidelines' reliance on "sentencing factors" was above constitutional reproach. ( Almendarez-Toires, supra, 523 U. S. at pp. 245-246, 118 S.Ct. 1219 .) Yet, in Booker , the court found that the federal sentencing guidelines were as constitutionally infirm as the statutory scheme found wanting in Blakely. ( Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 235 , 125 S.Ct. 738 .) Finally, in Alm | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Olson v. Cory
green
1 sentence2021Appealability Walton’s statement of appealability says, “[t]his order is appealable by the Family Code given that it is a final judgment to determine child custody and visitation.” “[S]ince the question of appealability goes to our jurisdiction, we are dutybound to consider it on our own motion.” (Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398 .) “It is settled that the right to appeal is strictly statutory, and a judgment or order is not appealable unless made so by statute. [Citation.] In civil matters, Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 is the main statutory authorization for appeals. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
green
1 sentence2021(Kleffman, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 346 .) But Walton’s claim was arguably tenable only if the claim fit within Kleffman’s 3 interpretation of section 17529.5(a)(2) and was not preempted. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.