21 Cited authorities

Marks v. United States
430 U.S. 188 (1977) Cited 2,098 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
Bouie v. City of Columbia
378 U.S. 347 (1964) Cited 1,496 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that extending South Carolina's trespassing statute to remaining on another's property after being asked to leave was inconsistent with the law's text barring only "entry" upon another's property
Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.
46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009) Cited 331 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination to recover for an ADA violation under the Unruh Act
Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013) Cited 92 times 8 Legal Analyses
In Apple, the court noted that the Act made no mention of online commercial transactions, and predated the prevalence of such transactions by a decade.
Vesely v. Sager
5 Cal.3d 153 (Cal. 1971) Cited 283 times 2 Legal Analyses
Abrogating common law rule and finding defendant could be liable based upon violation of criminal statute prohibiting vendors from selling alcohol to intoxicated person
Rabe v. Washington
405 U.S. 313 (1972) Cited 89 times
Holding that Washington Supreme Court's broadening of obscenity statute, which by its terms did not proscribe defendant's conduct, did not provide fair notice and was unexpected
Wilkoff v. Superior Court
38 Cal.3d 345 (Cal. 1985) Cited 163 times
Holding that only one conviction was appropriate under California's driving while intoxicated statute regardless of the number of victims
Hotel Employees Restaurant Emps. Int. Un. v. Davis
21 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1999) Cited 86 times
Holding that the invalid portions of a law were not volitionally separable despite the presence of a severability clause
Trinkle v. California State Lottery
105 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 45 times
Treating §§ 330b & 330.1 as identical
Cole v. Rush
45 Cal.2d 345 (Cal. 1955) Cited 150 times
Noting the Legislature's failure to change the law despite making numerous other statutory changes "is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended"

PEOPLE v. NASSER

21 Cited authorities

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

Holding that extending South Carolina's trespassing statute to remaining on another's property after being asked to leave was inconsistent with the law's text barring only "entry" upon another's property

Holding that a plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination to recover for an ADA violation under the Unruh Act

In Apple, the court noted that the Act made no mention of online commercial transactions, and predated the prevalence of such transactions by a decade.

Abrogating common law rule and finding defendant could be liable based upon violation of criminal statute prohibiting vendors from selling alcohol to intoxicated person

Holding that Washington Supreme Court's broadening of obscenity statute, which by its terms did not proscribe defendant's conduct, did not provide fair notice and was unexpected

Holding that only one conviction was appropriate under California's driving while intoxicated statute regardless of the number of victims

Holding that the invalid portions of a law were not volitionally separable despite the presence of a severability clause

Treating §§ 330b & 330.1 as identical

Noting the Legislature's failure to change the law despite making numerous other statutory changes "is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended"