Legal Opinion

Doe v. Harris

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 2013No. S191948PublishedCited by 100 opinions

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

  1. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. People v. HarveyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  3. People v. ArbuckleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. People v. SeguraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Garcia v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by100 opinions

  1. People v. StampsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Directv, Inc. v. ImburgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  3. Johnson v. Department of JusticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
  5. People v. Hurlic, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018

95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API