17 Cited authorities

  1. Hicks v. Oklahoma

    447 U.S. 343 (1980)   Cited 789 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has a “substantial and legitimate expectation” under the Fourteenth Amendment to be deprived of his liberty only to the extent determined by the trier of fact “in the exercise of its statutory discretion”
  2. People v. Carpenter

    15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 1,088 times
    Holding that a defendant could not raise an equal protection challenge for the first time on appeal
  3. Fetterly v. Paskett

    997 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion for a district court not to stay an exhausted petition pending exhaustion of a newly discovered claim
  4. Burris v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 1012 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 99 times
    In Burris, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1012, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 103 P.3d 276, a misdemeanor complaint was dismissed, followed by a felony charge based on the same conduct.
  5. Chevron U. Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    19 Cal.4th 1182 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 90 times

    S059214 Ct. App. 1/2 A070558 WCAB Case No. 76 OAK 61329 Filed January 25, 1999 Harbinson, Carlson Tune, Joel D. Tondreau and Mark H. Tune for Petitioner. Bryce C. Anderson; Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon Abrams, Victoria Edises, Anne Burr and Dianna Lyons for Respondent Lucille Steele. BROWN, J. Under the Workers' Compensation Act, an employer must pay a death benefit to the dependents of an employee who dies as a result of a work-related injury. (Lab. Code, § 4701, subd. (b); all further statutory

  6. People v. Traylor

    46 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 32 times
    In Traylor, however, our high court was not analyzing the situation we have here, an allegation of two separate offenses occurring on two different occasions.
  7. People v. Marshall

    48 Cal.2d 394 (Cal. 1957)   Cited 167 times
    In Marshall, the defendant was charged with robbery in violation of section 211 in an information which alleged that he did "`forcibly take from the person and immediate presence of Jack J. Martens... Seventy Dollars... and an automobile.'"
  8. Berardi v. Superior Court

    160 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 32 times
    Observing that Cal. Penal Code § 1387"generally provides a ‘two dismissal’ rule" precluding prosecutors from refiling certain charges only after the same charges have been dismissed twice already "according to the provisions of that statute"
  9. People v. Salcido

    166 Cal.App.4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard
  10. People v. Superior Court (Martinez)

    19 Cal.App.4th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 32 times
    Refiling of charges only prohibited by section 1387 if case is terminated by court order twice
  11. 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

  12. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 118 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide