§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE J.G.

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

33 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Williams

    17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,123 times
    Holding Romero relief unavailable for a defendant who was 20 years old at the time of the prior strike crimes and 32 years old at the time of the felony triggering the Three Strikes sentence

  2. Washington State Department of Social & Health Services v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler

    537 U.S. 371 (2003)   Cited 493 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase “other legal process” in 42 U.S.C. § 407 refers only to the utilization of a judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, the common attribute shared by the phrase and the statutory enumeration preceding it

  3. People v. Giordano

    42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 893 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a surviving spouse may receive lost economic support as restitution despite the fact that such recovery is not specifically enumerated

  4. People v. Harvey

    25 Cal.3d 754 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 1,945 times
    Holding that a court may not consider facts underlying a dismissed count for purposes of aggravating or enhancing a defendant's sentence

  5. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that independent review standard applied to trial court's conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court's usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”

  6. Miklosy v. Regents of University of California

    44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 457 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when "alleged wrongful conduct ... occur at the worksite, in the normal course of the employer-employee relationship ... workers' compensation is a plaintiff exclusive remedy for any injury that may" result

  7. People v. Brasure

    42 Cal.4th 1037 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 400 times
    Holding defendant forfeited claim that victim failed to show economic loss by documentation or sworn testimony because "by his failure to object, defendant forfeited any claim that the order was merely unwarranted by the evidence, as distinct from being unauthorized by statute"

  8. Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board

    409 U.S. 413 (1973)   Cited 330 times
    Holding that a state could not recover SSDI benefits paid because "the protection afforded by § 407 is to 'moneys paid'"

  9. People v. Gonzales

    2 Cal.5th 858 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 269 times
    Holding that because cashing a stolen check is a form of larceny under § 490, subd., a defendant’s conviction for burglary for "entering a bank to cash a stolen check for less than $950 ... constitutes shoplifting under the statute"

  10. Bennett v. Arkansas

    485 U.S. 395 (1988)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that "the express language of § 407 and the clear intent of Congress that Social Security benefits not be attachable"

  11. Section 1383 - Procedure for payment of benefits

    42 U.S.C. § 1383   Cited 15,277 times
    Adopting § 405(g)'s provisions for judicial review of Title XVI claims

  12. Section 416.640 - Use of benefit payments

    20 C.F.R. § 416.640   Cited 25 times
    Describing permissible uses of retroactive SSI benefit payments

  13. Section 416.635 - What are the responsibilities of your representative payee?

    20 C.F.R. § 416.635   Cited 23 times
    Outlining the responsibilities of a representative payee

  14. Rule 8.77 - Actions by court on receipt of electronically submitted document; date and time of filing

    Cal. R. 8.77   Cited 2 times

    (a) Confirmation of receipt and filing of document (1)Confirmation of receipt When the court receives an electronically submitted document, the court must arrange to promptly send the electronic filer confirmation of the court's receipt of the document, indicating the date and time of receipt by the court. (2)Filing If the electronically submitted document received by the court complies with filing requirements, the document is deemed filed on the date and time it was received by the court as stated

  15. 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