Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording [37] [38] [39] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity.
Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code; the other popular annotated version is Deering's, which is published by LexisNexis. The Penal Code of California forms the basis for the application of most criminal law, criminal procedure, penal institutions, and the execution of sentences, among other things, in the American state of California.
The strong New York influence on early California law started with the California Practice Act of 1851 (drafted with the help of Stephen Field), which was directly based upon the New York Code of Civil Procedure of 1850 (the Field Code). In turn, it was the California Practice Act that served as the foundation of the California Code of Civil ...
The California three strikes law (codified in the Penal Code) has resulted in severe penalties in some cases and has been somewhat controversial in its application. Proposition 13 , passed by California voters in 1978, created one of the strongest limits on property tax in the country.
Unlike California Penal Code §647(e) as construed in Solomon, the Nevada statute was apparently interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court as requiring only that persons detained upon involvement in a crime to state their name. [8] Hiibel does not provide a means of arresting someone for failing or refusing to identify himself. [9] [10] [11] [See ...
Failing to make these “reasonable adjustments” will amount to disability discrimination under the act if a worker’s menopause symptoms amount to a disability, the watchdog said.
California Penal Code section 15 defines a "crime" or "public offense" as "an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, any of the following punishments: Death; Imprisonment; Fine; Removal from office; or,
California was the first state in the U.S. to adopt the diminished capacity defense, beginning with People v. Wells [23] and People v. Gorshen. [24] [25] The doctrine would soon be abolished by ballot initiative in 1982 following the negative publicity surrounding the case of Dan White, who had killed George Moscone and Harvey Milk.