38 Cited authorities

Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) Cited 5,905 times 8 Legal Analyses
Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"
People v. Lee
31 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2003) Cited 606 times
In People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 623-24, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176 (2003), the California Supreme Court spoke on the state of mind needed by an order and abettor in an attempted murder case.
People ex Rel. Gallo v. Acuna
14 Cal.4th 1090 (Cal. 1997) Cited 514 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that preliminary injunctions are reviewed "under an abuse of discretion standard"
People v. Avery
27 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2002) Cited 377 times
Allowing courts to look to the entire record of conviction to determine whether the out-of-state conduct constitutes a "serious felony" under Three Strikes
Morillion v. Royal Packing
22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) Cited 331 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable
People v. Woodhead
43 Cal.3d 1002 (Cal. 1987) Cited 359 times
Noting the term "convicted" "may have different meanings in different contexts, or even different meanings within a single statute"
People v. Overstreet
42 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1986) Cited 284 times
Reasoning that a statute should be construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit"
People v. Nuckles
56 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2013) Cited 134 times
In Nuckles, we said that "[t]he gist of the [ section 32 ] offense is that the accused ‘ "harbors, conceals or aids" the principal with the requisite knowledge and intent.
People v. Jones
46 Cal.3d 585 (Cal. 1988) Cited 251 times
Assigning different meanings for the word "crimes" in Pen. Code § 667.6, subds. (c) and (d)
Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013) Cited 91 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.
Section 2701 - Findings
25 U.S.C. § 2701 Cited 815 times 19 Legal Analyses
Finding that “[f]ederal courts have held that section 81 of this title requires Secretarial review of management contracts dealing with Indian gaming, but does not provide standards for approval of such contracts”
Section 1166 - Gambling in Indian country
18 U.S.C. § 1166 Cited 113 times
In § 1166(a), Congress did not intend to create an implied right of action that would give states the right to sue to enjoin class III gambling even if such gambling was a nuisance that could be enjoined under state law.
Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions
Cal. R. 8.1115 Cited 73,834 times
(a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary
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
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times
(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

PEOPLE v. NASSER

38 Cited authorities

Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

In People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 623-24, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176 (2003), the California Supreme Court spoke on the state of mind needed by an order and abettor in an attempted murder case.

Holding that preliminary injunctions are reviewed "under an abuse of discretion standard"

Allowing courts to look to the entire record of conviction to determine whether the out-of-state conduct constitutes a "serious felony" under Three Strikes

Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

Noting the term "convicted" "may have different meanings in different contexts, or even different meanings within a single statute"

Reasoning that a statute should be construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit"

In Nuckles, we said that "[t]he gist of the [ section 32 ] offense is that the accused ‘ "harbors, conceals or aids" the principal with the requisite knowledge and intent.

Assigning different meanings for the word "crimes" in Pen. Code § 667.6, subds. (c) and (d)

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.

Finding that “[f]ederal courts have held that section 81 of this title requires Secretarial review of management contracts dealing with Indian gaming, but does not provide standards for approval of such contracts”

In § 1166(a), Congress did not intend to create an implied right of action that would give states the right to sue to enjoin class III gambling even if such gambling was a nuisance that could be enjoined under state law.