§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. BIANE

Appellant’s Petition for Review

49 Cited authorities

  1. Kolender v. Lawson

    461 U.S. 352 (1983)   Cited 3,041 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding state misdemeanor statute unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause

  2. Iannelli v. United States

    420 U.S. 770 (1975)   Cited 1,201 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the conspiratorial agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the acts and conduct of the coconspirators and the inferences that may be drawn from their acts

  3. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,921 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  4. Tenney v. Brandhove

    341 U.S. 367 (1951)   Cited 1,246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege"

  5. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

    9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 449 times
    Holding that the terms camping, living, and store are not "vague ... when the purpose clause of the ordinance is considered and the terms are read in that context as they should be."

  6. People v. Morante

    20 Cal.4th 403 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 390 times
    In Morante, the court noted that "[i]t is well established that one may become criminally liable for possession for sale or for transportation of a controlled substance, based upon either actual or constructive possession of the substance.

  7. U.S. v. McNair

    605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 249 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that evidence of "the extent to which the parties went to conceal their bribes is powerful evidence of their corrupt intent"

  8. Manduley v. Superior Court of San Diego County

    27 Cal.4th 537 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 314 times
    Upholding Proposition 21

  9. People v. Gaio

    81 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 237 times
    Holding that evidence was sufficient to support bribery convictions because evidence established that payment was given to influence "any one or more instances, types, or courses of official action"

  10. People v. Diedrich

    31 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 327 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding omission of unanimity instruction prejudicial where defendant's defenses to two possible acts of bribery underlying single charged offense differed

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  12. Rule 8.486 - Petitions

    Cal. R. 8.486   Cited 72 times

    (a)Contents of petition (1) If the petition could have been filed first in a lower court, it must explain why the reviewing court should issue the writ as an original matter. (2) If the petition names as respondent a judge, court, board, or other officer acting in a public capacity, it must disclose the name of any real party in interest. (3) If the petition seeks review of trial court proceedings that are also the subject of a pending appeal, the notice "Related Appeal Pending" must appear on the