§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MORAN (To be called and continued to the late May 2016 calendar.)

Respondent’s Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,723 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

  2. Shapiro v. Thompson

    394 U.S. 618 (1969)   Cited 2,287 times
    Holding a federal law that applied to residents of the District of Columbia violated the right to travel

  3. Saenz v. Roe

    526 U.S. 489 (1999)   Cited 541 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the right "to be treated equally" is at stake, "discriminatory classification is itself a penalty"

  4. In re E.O.

    188 Cal.App.4th 1149 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 445 times
    Noting the "essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant's constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement"

  5. People v. Urke

    197 Cal.App.4th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 279 times
    Granting and revoking probation are discretionary with the court

  6. 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."

  7. People v. Anderson

    50 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 234 times
    Requiring payment of restitution "renders defendant accountable for the financial harm he caused and contributes to his reformation and rehabilitation"

  8. In re J.W

    204 Ill. 2d 50 (Ill. 2003)   Cited 191 times
    Holding lifetime juvenile sex-offender registration did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because of the limited dissemination of the offender’s information

  9. People v. Patel

    196 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 149 times
    Holding scienter requirement will be deemed present in all probation conditions restricting presence, possession, or association

  10. People v. Bauer

    211 Cal.App.3d 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 258 times
    Finding residence approval condition not related to the defendant and his crimes in the case, but not invalidating the condition in every case

  11. 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