Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Cruz

California Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1996No. S046075Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, J.*

I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that it has “not added words to [Penal Code] section 1192.7[, subdivision] (c)(18), nor . . . rewritten that provision.” (Maj. opn., ante, this page.) Such bold disclaimer notwithstanding, that is precisely what the majority has done. In adding language to Penal Code1 section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18) (section 1192.7(c)(18)) under the guise of effecting legislative intent, the majority ignores a specific legislative directive prohibiting such reconfiguration and violates several relevant principles of statutory interpretation.

A.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  3. People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  5. In-Home Supportive Services v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

10 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