§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SASSER

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

30 Cited authorities

  1. Ewing v. California

    538 U.S. 11 (2003)   Cited 2,719 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding sentence of twenty-five years to life for theft of three golf clubs, valued at approximately $1200, was not violative of the Eighth Amendment, given defendant's prior felony convictions

  2. Payne v. Tennessee

    501 U.S. 808 (1991)   Cited 2,614 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

  3. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

    491 U.S. 164 (1989)   Cited 2,380 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a hostile work environment discrimination claim is not actionable under § 1981

  4. Brown v. Plata

    563 U.S. 493 (2011)   Cited 783 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where prison overcrowding was due to state budget shortfalls, a court-mandated prison-population limit was "necessary to remedy the violation of prisoners' constitutional rights" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act

  5. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,099 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  6. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,424 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  7. People v. Ewoldt

    7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 2,256 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "least degree of similarity" between two offenses is required to prove intent.

  8. People v. Correa

    54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 718 times
    Holding that section 654 does not bar multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same criminal statute and disapproving contrary dictum in Neal v. State of California

  9. People v. Williams

    26 Cal.4th 779 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 691 times
    Holding that assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur

  10. Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health

    462 U.S. 416 (1983)   Cited 335 times
    Holding unconstitutional a hospitalization requirement for certain abortions that more than doubled the cost of such abortions

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,167 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