§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

Appellant’s Petition for Review

39 Cited authorities

  1. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

    412 U.S. 218 (1973)   Cited 11,967 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

  2. Bumper v. North Carolina

    391 U.S. 543 (1968)   Cited 2,825 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority “cannot be consent”

  3. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,727 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

  4. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 4,473 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

  5. People v. Ayala

    23 Cal.4th 225 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,214 times
    Rejecting the defendant's claim of vindictive prosecution "under any standard of review"

  6. Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University

    132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 513 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion

  7. Elkins v. Superior Court

    41 Cal.4th 1337 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 341 times
    Holding local family law procedures for abbreviated proceedings based on declarations inconsistent with statute, rules of procedure, and rules of evidence

  8. People v. Pirali

    217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 263 times
    Concluding overbreadth claim not forfeited

  9. People v. Lara

    86 Cal.App.4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 285 times
    Finding error where court expressly denied "Marsden" motion regarding retained counsel

  10. City of Sacramento v. Drew

    207 Cal.App.3d 1287 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 369 times
    Reversing denial of attorney fees to plaintiff who obtained judgment after his motion for summary judgment was granted on a basis not raised by original moving papers

  11. Section 1538.5 - Motion for return of property or to suppress evidence

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1538.5   Cited 5,552 times
    Providing California criminal defendants with the ability to move for the suppression of unconstitutionally obtained evidence

  12. Rule 10.950 - Role of presiding judge, supervising judge, criminal division, and master calendar department in courts having more than three judges

    Cal. R. 10.950   Cited 3 times

    The presiding judge of a court having more than three judges may designate one or more departments primarily to hear criminal cases. Two or more departments so designated must be the criminal division. The presiding judge may designate supervising judges for the criminal division, but retains final authority over all criminal and civil case assignments. Cal. R. Ct. 10.950 Chapter 13 renumbered effective 1/1/2008; adopted as Chapter 12 effective 1/1/2007. Rule 10.950 amended and renumbered effective1/1/2007;