Watkins claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Watkins claim in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2025 3 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Bradfordgreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2025
2 sentences

2025(People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057 [cumulative prejudice argument rejected because each individual contention lacked merit or did not result in prejudice].) Taking all of appellant’s claims into account, we are satisfied that he received a fair adjudication regarding his guilt for the rape of Doe.

2022(People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057 [cumulative prejudice argument rejected because each individual contention lacked merit or did not result in prejudice].) Taking all of appellant’s claims into account, we are satisfied that he received a fair adjudication regarding his guilt for the rape of Doe. 16.

22
Atkins v. Strayhorngreen
calctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995Again, Dr. Watkins's challenge has hit its mark. (4) In structuring a periodic-payment schedule under section 667.7, a trial court is "guided by the evidence of future damages" introduced at trial. ( American Bank, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 377 ; see Atkins, supra, 223 Cal. App.3d at p. 1397 ; see also § 667.7, subds. (a), (f).) The fundamental goal in this respect is to attempt to match losses with compensation "to ensure that money paid to an injured plaintiff will in fact be available when the plaintiff incurs the anticipated expenses or losses in the future." ( American Bank, supra, at p. 369

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Raybon green
calctapp5d · 2019
1 sentence

2021On October 1, 2019, Watkins filed a petition for resentencing or dismissal under section 11361.8, arguing that his conviction for count 2 qualified for dismissal under that provision as interpreted in People v. Raybon (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 111, 119 , review granted Aug. 21, 2019, S256978 (Raybon).

12021–2021
La Sala v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n green
cal · 1971
1 sentence

2009(Kagan v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 872 .) 17 Similarly irrelevant is Watkins’s claim that she retains an economic interest in the pursuit of the class action because, if the class is successful, she may be entitled to an “enhancement payment”—presumably a payment made from the class recovery to the named plaintiff as *1593 compensation for the additional risks taken by the named plaintiff in pursuing the action.

12009–2009
Kagan v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Ass'n green
cal · 1984
1 sentence

2009(Kagan v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 872 .) 17 Similarly irrelevant is Watkins’s claim that she retains an economic interest in the pursuit of the class action because, if the class is successful, she may be entitled to an “enhancement payment”—presumably a payment made from the class recovery to the named plaintiff as *1593 compensation for the additional risks taken by the named plaintiff in pursuing the action.

12009–2009
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital green
cal · 1984
1 sentence

1995Again, Dr. Watkins's challenge has hit its mark. (4) In structuring a periodic-payment schedule under section 667.7, a trial court is "guided by the evidence of future damages" introduced at trial. ( American Bank, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 377 ; see Atkins, supra, 223 Cal. App.3d at p. 1397 ; see also § 667.7, subds. (a), (f).) The fundamental goal in this respect is to attempt to match losses with compensation "to ensure that money paid to an injured plaintiff will in fact be available when the plaintiff incurs the anticipated expenses or losses in the future." ( American Bank, supra, at p. 369

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

MI 24 (2016–2026) OH 8 (2008–2025) NC 7 (1996–2023) GA 7 (1999–2022) FL 6 (1992–2019) TX 5 (2005–2022) CA 5 (1995–2025) WA 5 (1984–2013) MS 4 (2011–2023) IN 4 (2007–2018) MO 4 (1963–2023) IL 4 (1972–2014) SC 4 (1988–2023) MN 4 (2013–2016) DC 3 (1999–2008) MD 3 (1962–2000) LA 2 (1984–1984) TN 2 (2014–2014) IA 2 (2015–2020) AR 2 (1953–2016) KS 2 (2003–2007)

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