23 Cited authorities

  1. Shapiro v. Thompson

    394 U.S. 618 (1969)   Cited 2,239 times
    Holding a federal law that applied to residents of the District of Columbia violated the right to travel
  2. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 1,714 times
    In Sheena K., we approved the Court of Appeal's reliance on the vagueness doctrine to order modification of a probation condition barring the probationer from associating with " ‘anyone disapproved of by probation.
  3. Saenz v. Roe

    526 U.S. 489 (1999)   Cited 417 times
    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 371 times

    No. H035462. September 29, 2010. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. J33351, Patrick E. Tondreau, Judge. Jonathan Grossman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION RUSHING, P. J. The trial court placed E.O

  5. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

    9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 346 times
    Holding that plaintiffs had not established that they lacked "alternatives to either the condition of being homeless or the conduct that led to homelessness and to the citations"
  6. People v. Urke

    197 Cal.App.4th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 216 times
    In People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 405, a more recent case, the appellate court again had occasion to hold that, when a defendant's probation is revoked, the mandatory restitution fine imposed as a condition of probation survives the revocation of probation, so that it is improper and beyond the trial court's authority to impose another restitution fine upon sentencing the defendant to state prison.
  7. People v. Anderson

    50 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 171 times
    In Anderson, the California Supreme Court affirmed a restitution award to a hospital that provided medical services to the victim of defendant's crime.
  8. People v. Patel

    196 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 139 times
    In Patel, we considered a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from drinking or possessing alcohol, or being in a place where alcohol was the chief item of sale.
  9. In re J.W

    204 Ill. 2d 50 (Ill. 2003)   Cited 176 times
    Holding lifetime juvenile sex-offender registration did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because of the limited dissemination of the offender's information
  10. People v. Bauer

    211 Cal.App.3d 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 206 times
    Determining there existed a nexus between the underlying crimes and the condition to abstain from drugs in case involving warrantless probation search following convictions for false imprisonment and simple assault
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 219 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