15 Cited authorities

People v. Briceno
34 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 2004) Cited 282 times
Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22
Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.
53 Cal.4th 1244 (Cal. 2012) Cited 196 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding attorneys' fees “not authorized” for meal or rest period claims
Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba
100 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 165 times
Concluding that members of the public were improperly arrested for trespass because the route was a public road based on historic state interpretation of dedication
In re C.H.
53 Cal.4th 94 (Cal. 2011) Cited 108 times
Construing Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 731, subd., 733, subd. (c)
Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court
32 Cal.4th 771 (Cal. 2004) Cited 132 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 P.3d 290 (Cal. 2004), the California Supreme Court confronted the sad story of Juan Inclan, an "elder," during his eight-week stay at a "skilled nursing facility."
Friends of the Trails v. Blasius
78 Cal.App.4th 810 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 62 times
Denying relief against easement owner was proper when the easement owner had no interest adverse to the plaintiffs
Hanshaw v. Long Valley Rd. Assn.
116 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 22 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding Civ. Code, § 1009 does not abolish implied dedications arising from public nonrecreational use
Pulido v. Pereira
234 Cal.App.4th 1246 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 10 times 2 Legal Analyses
C072284 03-05-2015 Antonio PULIDO et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents, v. Alfred Robert PEREIRA, Jr., Individually and as Trustee, etc., Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli and Stephanie J. Finelli,Sacramento, for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of William E. Barnes, Mark H. Salyer and William E. Barnes, Sacramento, for Cross-complainants and Respondents. BLEASE, Acting P.J. Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli and Stephanie J. Finelli,Sacramento, for
Gion v. City of Santa Cruz
2 Cal.3d 29 (Cal. 1970) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Gion, we noted, "the public use of the land [was] accentuated by the active participation of the city in maintaining the land and helping the public to enjoy it."
Redwood Empire v. Gombos
82 Cal.App.4th 352 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 19 times
Upholding a finding of implied public dedication of a one-lane dirt road in the Santa Cruz Mountains

SCHER v. BURKE

15 Cited authorities

Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22

Holding attorneys' fees “not authorized” for meal or rest period claims

Concluding that members of the public were improperly arrested for trespass because the route was a public road based on historic state interpretation of dedication

Construing Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 731, subd., 733, subd. (c)

In Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 P.3d 290 (Cal. 2004), the California Supreme Court confronted the sad story of Juan Inclan, an "elder," during his eight-week stay at a "skilled nursing facility."

Denying relief against easement owner was proper when the easement owner had no interest adverse to the plaintiffs

Holding Civ. Code, § 1009 does not abolish implied dedications arising from public nonrecreational use

In Gion, we noted, "the public use of the land [was] accentuated by the active participation of the city in maintaining the land and helping the public to enjoy it."

Upholding a finding of implied public dedication of a one-lane dirt road in the Santa Cruz Mountains