For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
People v. Delavega
Court has discretion to impose lesser enhancement when it strikes greater enhancement under Penal Code Section 12022.53 only when lesser enhancement was charged and found to be true. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/1 Jan. 20, 2021
U.S. v. Gear
In order to gain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(5)(B), government must prove defendant knew he was admitted into the country under a nonimmigrant visa. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Jan. 20, 2021
Scalia v. State of Alaska
When rotational employee takes continuous leave, both his on and off weeks count as 'workweeks of leave' for purposes of Family and Medical Leave Act. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Jan. 19, 2021
Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
'Dynamex' standard to determine whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors for purposes of obligations imposed by California's wage orders, applies retroactively. 		statutory_interpretation CASC Jan. 15, 2021
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Collazo
To obtain conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, government need not prove defendant's knowledge or intent with respect to drug type and quantity. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Jan. 15, 2021
People v. Superior Court (Arnold)
Absent further time waivers, preliminary hearings cannot be continued beyond the agreed-upon date. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/7 Jan. 14, 2021
People v. Panozo
Penal Code Sections 1170.9 and 1170.91 obligate court to consider defendant's service-related mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder, as mitigating factor in granting probation. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/1 Jan. 12, 2021
People v. Laanui
Pleading and proof of prior strike allegation is sufficient to subject defendant to Three Strikes sentencing on all eligible offenses, without alleging strike on count-by-count basis. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/1 Jan. 12, 2021
Modification: People v. Mackreth
Resisting arrest under Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) does not require actual knowledge that the person defendant resists was a police officer. 		statutory_interpretation 6DCA Jan. 7, 2021
Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates
Requirement that local government install and maintain trash receptacles was a reimbursable state mandate, but requirement to inspect was not because local government may levy that charge. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/1 Jan. 6, 2021
People v. Ruiz
Applying 60-day limit to challenging erroneous parole supervision placement without providing notice violated defendant's constitutional due process rights. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/1 Jan. 4, 2021
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo v. Dept. of Finance
Money on deposit pursuant to agreement could not be transferred to taxing entities because funds "are legally restricted as to purpose" under Health and Safety Code Section 34179. 		statutory_interpretation 3DCA Dec. 31, 2020
Modification: Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
Partial certification of environmental impact report was rejected because an EIR is either completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act or it is not so completed. 		statutory_interpretation 5DCA Dec. 24, 2020
State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Oetiker, Inc.
As applied to nonbuilders, Right to Repair Act's 10-year statute of repose does not cover claims based on strict liability and breach of implied warranty. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/6 Dec. 22, 2020
People v. Gentile
Senate Bill 1437 bars conviction of second degree murder under theory that defendant aided and abetted a crime, the natural and probable consequence of which was murder. 		statutory_interpretation CASC Dec. 18, 2020
People v. Estrada
Trial court properly construed Penal Code Section 1170.91(b)(1) as applicable only to defendants serving determinate sentences; thus, defendant was ineligible for resentencing. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/5 Dec. 18, 2020
Calleros v. Rural Metro of San Diego
Appeal of class certification motion was held moot because of Proposition 11's retroactive application. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/1 Dec. 17, 2020
People v. France
For retroactivity purposes, order placing defendant on probation with execution of sentence suspended was provisional or conditional, not final judgment; thus, Senate Bill No. 136 applied retroactively. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/4 Dec. 17, 2020
U.S. v. Hardiman
'United States v. Pimentel-Lopez' does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review; thus, district court properly denied appellant's 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Dec. 16, 2020
Moore v. Superior Court (People)
Vehicle Code Section 23640 renders all felony and misdemeanor DUI defendants ineligible for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/2 Dec. 15, 2020
In re Parrish
Although defendant was not the actual killer, he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life and therefore his habeas petition was properly denied. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/8 Dec. 15, 2020
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Bautista
District court erred in applying recidivist sentencing enhancement based on defendant's prior state conviction for transportation of marijuana after hemp was removed from federal drug schedule. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Dec. 14, 2020
People v. Mackreth
Resisting arrest under Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) does not require actual knowledge that the person defendant resists was a police officer. 		statutory_interpretation 6DCA Dec. 11, 2020
U.S. v. Briggs
Three military service members' prosecutions for rape were timely since Uniform Code of Military Justice's 5-year statute of limitations did not apply to bar their convictions. 		statutory_interpretation USSC Dec. 11, 2020
People v. Rodriguez
Penal Code Section 1170.95 requires prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt each element of first or second degree murder under current law to establish petitioner's ineligibility for relief. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/7 Dec. 9, 2020
People v. Martin
Parolee exposed to potentially long prison sentence for parole violation resulting from non-criminal conduct was not entitled to have jury determine beyond reasonable doubt whether he violated parole. 		statutory_interpretation 4DCA/2 Dec. 9, 2020
People v. The North River Insurance Co.
Assuming trial court lacked jurisdictional prerequisite to declaring forfeiture of bail, absence of prerequisite did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction to deny summary judgment in fundamental sense. 		statutory_interpretation 5DCA Dec. 9, 2020
Modification: People v. Shelp
Post Release Community Supervision was enacted to rehabilitate nonviolent felons, not to reward the felon with custody credits that can theoretically reduce supervision period to zero. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/6 Dec. 9, 2020
People v. Abbate
Gang conspiracy statute does not require any prior agreement among conspirators to assist in commission of particular target crime. 		statutory_interpretation 1DCA/3 Dec. 7, 2020
U.S. v. Lozoya
Vennue for in- flight federal crimes is proper in landing district, not district sitting directly below plane when crime was committed. 		statutory_interpretation 9th Dec. 4, 2020
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.