§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. TURNAGE

Appellant's Answer to Petition for Review

74 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,630 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  2. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

    473 U.S. 432 (1985)   Cited 9,700 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class

  3. United States v. Lanier

    520 U.S. 259 (1997)   Cited 2,399 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague

  4. Kolender v. Lawson

    461 U.S. 352 (1983)   Cited 3,040 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause

  5. Chicago v. Morales

    527 U.S. 41 (1999)   Cited 1,298 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that vagueness that "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests" is subject to facial challenge

  6. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,097 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  7. People v. Sandoval

    41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,273 times
    Holding that judicial discretion to impose a lower, middle, or upper term complied with Cunningham

  8. Smith v. Goguen

    415 U.S. 566 (1974)   Cited 1,195 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding statute void-for-vagueness without finding that Goguen's actions constituted protected speech

  9. Bouie v. City of Columbia

    378 U.S. 347 (1964)   Cited 1,495 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that extending South Carolina's trespassing statute to remaining on another's property after being asked to leave was inconsistent with the law's text barring only "entry" upon another's property

  10. People v. Chun

    45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,028 times
    Holding that Cal. Penal Code § 246 cannot be a predicate offense to support second-degree felony-murder conviction

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. IV § 1   Cited 176 times
    Reserving to the people of California “the powers of initiative and referendum”

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)