§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE R.V.

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

48 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Alabama

    567 U.S. 460 (2012)   Cited 6,840 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders

  2. Graham v. Florida

    560 U.S. 48 (2010)   Cited 4,410 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  3. Ornelas v. United States

    517 U.S. 690 (1996)   Cited 6,548 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellate courts should review reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations de novo

  4. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,500 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  5. Thompson v. Keohane

    516 U.S. 99 (1995)   Cited 2,429 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations consist of "basic, primary, or historical facts" (quoting Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 309 n.6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) )

  6. Drope v. Missouri

    420 U.S. 162 (1975)   Cited 2,907 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency

  7. In re Gault

    387 U.S. 1 (1967)   Cited 4,092 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that children in juvenile delinquency proceedings have a right to notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and a right against self-incrimination

  8. Medina v. California

    505 U.S. 437 (1992)   Cited 1,290 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights

  9. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,614 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

  10. Dusky v. United States

    362 U.S. 402 (1960)   Cited 3,984 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and has "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  12. Rule 5.645 - Mental health or condition of child; competency evaluations

    Cal. R. 5.645   Cited 24 times

    (a) Doubt as to child's competency (§§ 601, 602, 709) (1) If the court finds that there is substantial evidence regarding a child who is the subject of a petition filed under section 601 or 602 that raises a doubt as to the child's competency as defined in section 709, the court must suspend the proceedings and conduct a hearing regarding the child's competency. (2) Unless the parties have stipulated to a finding of incompetency, the court must appoint an expert to evaluate the child and determine

  13. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  14. Rule 8.50 - Applications

    Cal. R. 8.50   Cited 11 times

    (a)Service and filing Except as these rules provide otherwise, parties must serve and file all applications in the reviewing court, including applications to extend the time to file records, briefs, or other documents, and applications to shorten time. For good cause, the Chief Justice or presiding justice may excuse advance service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2023; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Contents The application must state facts showing good cause or making

  15. Rule 1.21 - Service

    Cal. R. 1.21   Cited 7 times

    (a) Service on a party or attorney Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented. (b) "Serve and file" As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to "serve and file" a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or

  16. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any