§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CASTILLOLOPEZ

Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

25 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 4,496 times
    Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant

  2. Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 597 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

  3. People v. Rodriguez

    55 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 523 times
    Discussing CPC § 186.22

  4. People v. Mendoza

    23 Cal.4th 896 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 464 times
    In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.

  5. People v. Murphy

    25 Cal.4th 136 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 348 times
    Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous

  6. Coal. of Conc. Com. v. City

    34 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 255 times
    Confirming interpretation of the statutory text by examining the legislative history

  7. People v. Rubalcava

    23 Cal.4th 322 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 258 times
    Holding that the intent to use a dagger as a stabbing weapon is not an express element of California Penal Code § 12020

  8. People v. Benson

    18 Cal.4th 24 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 247 times
    Holding that although defendant's two prior felony convictions — residential burglary and assault with intent to commit murder — were sustained in one action and arose out of the same set of facts, they constituted two separate strikes

  9. Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc.

    23 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 231 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff may seek "injunctive relief against unfair or unlawful practices in order to protect the public"

  10. People v. Jenkins

    10 Cal.4th 234 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 237 times
    Concluding that § 667.7, although not an "enhancement," is a penalty provision that does not create a substantive offense

  11. Rule 8.224 - Transmitting exhibits

    Cal. R. 8.224   Cited 247 times

    (a)Notice of designation (1) Within 10 days after the last respondent's brief is filed or could be filed under rule 8.220, a party wanting the reviewing court to consider any original exhibits that were admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged but that were not copied in the clerk's transcript under rule 8.122 or the appendix under rule 8.124 must serve and file a notice in superior court designating such exhibits. (2) Within 10 days after a notice under (1) is served, any other party wanting the

  12. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  13. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any