§Why CasetextPricing

HUDEC v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, The People, Petition for Review

37 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n

    378 U.S. 52 (1964)   Cited 1,089 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendants could be compelled to answer the Government's questions because a grant of state-law immunity shielded them from the use of their testimony and its fruits in federal court

  3. Allen v. Illinois

    478 U.S. 364 (1986)   Cited 461 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proceedings under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act were not criminal for purposes of Fifth Amendment's prohibition of compulsory self-incrimination

  4. United States v. Balsys

    524 U.S. 666 (1998)   Cited 164 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the text “any criminal case” under the Fifth Amendment's Self–Incrimination Clause does not generally include criminal cases in foreign jurisdictions, and noting that the textual argument to the contrary “overlooks the cardinal rule to construe provisions in context”

  5. Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist.

    29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 263 times
    In Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 919 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 62 P.3d 54], it held that a provision in that code must be interpreted "`"with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect.

  6. People v. Leiva

    56 Cal.4th 498 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 174 times
    Holding the tolling provision of section 1203.2, subdivision "to have a latent ambiguity" that could lead to an absurd result

  7. People v. Allen

    44 Cal.4th 843 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 152 times
    Concluding that error in precluding entirety of defendant's testimony in SVP proceeding was harmless

  8. People v. Clark

    82 Cal.App.4th 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 180 times
    Refusing to recognize a right against compulsory self-incrimination

  9. People v. Leonard

    78 Cal.App.4th 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 149 times
    Allowing the People to question the civil committee "enhances the reliability of the outcome

  10. Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson

    30 Cal.3d 721 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that apartment complex could not, under the Unruh Act, prohibit families with children

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  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