§Why CasetextPricing

STEEN v. APPELLATE DIVISION

Real Party in Interest, The People, Opposition

6 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Webster

    54 Cal.3d 411 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 455 times
    Holding "concealment of physical presence is not a requirement of lying in wait"

  2. Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    7 Cal.4th 1057 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that a suit to enjoin the "Old Joe Camel" cigarette advertising campaign targeting minors pursuant to California state law is not preempted by the Federal Act

  3. Sosinsky v. Grant

    6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 191 times
    Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

  4. People v. Peevy

    17 Cal.4th 1184 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 133 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Peevy, this court concluded that the balance of interests did not warrant the exclusion of a statement that had been deliberately elicited in violation of Miranda for purposes of impeaching the defendant’s trial testimony.

  5. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. III § 3   Cited 403 times
    Guaranteeing the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches

  6. Rule 8.29 - Service on nonparty public officer or agency

    Cal. R. 8.29   Cited 6 times

    (a)Proof of service When a statute or this rule requires a party to serve any document on a nonparty public officer or agency, the party must file proof of such service with the document unless a statute permits service after the document is filed, in which case the proof of service must be filed immediately after the document is served on the public officer or agency. (Subd (a) relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (b).) (b)Identification on cover When a statute or this rule requires