Doe v. Harris
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering a claim by plaintiff that his plea agreement would be violated by requiring him to comply with postconviction amendments to California’s Sex Offender Registration Act, Penal Code section 290 et seq.,1 requested an answer to the following question: “Whether, under California law, the default *66rule of contract interpretation is (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.” We accepted the request and…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- People v. HarveyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. ArbuckleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- People v. SeguraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Garcia v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by100 opinions
- People v. StampsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- Directv, Inc. v. ImburgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Johnson v. Department of JusticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- People v. Hurlic, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.