§Why CasetextPricing

CABRERA (ELVIN) ON H.C.

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Petition for Review

20 Cited authorities

  1. Superintendent v. Hill

    472 U.S. 445 (1985)   Cited 8,277 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the some-evidence standard was satisfied where three inmates were seen fleeing the scene of an assault but the evidence "did not support an inference that . . . either of the respondents was the assailant or otherwise participated in the assault"

  2. People v. Duvall

    9 Cal.4th 464 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 2,646 times
    Holding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available evidence

  3. In re Lawrence

    44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 1,266 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the passage of time is a factor the Board must consider when it determines whether a prisoner is currently dangerous and, thus, unsuitable for parole

  4. In re David M.

    134 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 758 times
    Finding no current evidence of mental illness that would present a risk to the child

  5. People v. Gonzalez

    126 Cal.App.4th 1539 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 401 times
    In Gonzalez, the defendant argued that testimony by the gang expert (Sergeant Garcia) violated Killebrew by expressing an opinion, in response to hypothetical questions, regarding whether some of the witnesses had been intimidated by gang members.

  6. People v. Castenada

    23 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 440 times
    Finding that legislature's wording of "actively participates," as contained in Cal. Penal Code § 186.22, is not void for vagueness

  7. People v. Valdez

    58 Cal.App.4th 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 473 times
    Holding expert opinion concerning whether the defendant acted for the benefit of a gang was admissible under the circumstances of the case

  8. In re Jose P.

    106 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 261 times
    Rejecting defendant's argument that “the evidence of gang activity must be specific to a particular local street gang, not to the larger Norteño organization”

  9. People v. Harris

    47 Cal.3d 1047 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 349 times
    Holding under the Confrontation Clause the trial court has discretion to disallow impeachment of a witness based on evidence that is repetitive or only marginally relevant

  10. Copley Press v. Sup. Court

    39 Cal.4th 1272 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that newspaper was not entitled to records relating to peace officer's administrative appeal of disciplinary matter under California Public Records Act

  11. Section 14

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 14   Cited 476 times
    Requiring decisions that determine causes to be "in writing with reasons stated"

  12. Section 3378 - Security Threat Group Identification, Prevention, and Management

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3378   Cited 135 times
    Providing for the use of a "Confidential Information Disclosure Form" for disclosure to the inmate of information used in the validation or inactive status review

  13. 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