Legal Opinion

People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho)

California Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1974No. S.F. 23048PublishedCited by 166 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

J.The sole issue in this proceeding for writ of mandate is whether under the rule of People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89 [89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993], Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119 [95 Cal.Rptr. 524, 485 P.2d 1140], People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248 [102 Cal.Rptr. 137, 497 P.2d 481], and People v. Clay (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 964 [96 Cal.Rptr. 213] (hg. den.), the district attorney may constitutionally exercise a veto power over the decision of a trial judge to order that a defendant charged with a narcotics offense be “diverted” into a pretrial program…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. TenorioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. People v. NavarroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Esteybar v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Lotts v. Board of Park CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. People v. ClayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971

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

3Cited by166 opinions

  1. People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Solberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. People v. GeigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. LeonardisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1977
  5. Manduley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

161 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