66 Cited authorities

  1. Burrage v. United States

    571 U.S. 204 (2014)   Cited 805 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the penalty enhancement provision requires that the relevant drug use be a "but-for" cause of the death or injury
  2. Muscarello v. United States

    524 U.S. 125 (1998)   Cited 626 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the “during and in relation to” language is the “limiting phrase” in section 924(c) that “should prevent misuse of the statute to penalize those whose conduct does not create the risks of harm at which the statute aims”
  3. United States v. Bass

    404 U.S. 336 (1971)   Cited 1,230 times
    Holding that Congress must speak clearly when it legislates in areas of criminal law that are traditionally regulated by the states
  4. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,025 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."
  5. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 881 times
    Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”
  6. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.

    23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 527 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding restitution is "the return of the excess of what the plaintiff gave the defendant over the value of what the plaintiff received"
  7. People v. Castenada

    23 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 436 times
    Finding that legislature's wording of "actively participates," as contained in Cal. Penal Code § 186.22, is not void for vagueness
  8. People v. Avery

    27 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 367 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
  9. People v. Bland

    10 Cal.4th 991 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 395 times
    Finding that it was reasonable for a jury to infer facilitative nexus where the drugs were found in the closet in the same room where an unloaded rifle was found beneath the defendant's bed
  10. Green v. State

    42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 266 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation
  11. Section 924 - Penalties

    18 U.S.C. § 924   Cited 56,351 times   180 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conviction for eluding police, under Maine statute which provides that "[w]hoever, after being requested or signaled to stop, attempts to elude a law enforcement officer by driving a vehicle at a reckless rate of speed which results in a high-speed chase between the operator's vehicle and any law enforcement vehicle using a blue light and siren is guilty" of a felony-level crime, involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)
  12. Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 10,336 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
  13. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 1,923 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 305 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