People v. Mejia
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
CROSBY, J., Dissenting.
Our Supreme Court says this about the subject at hand (except when it is saying the opposite)1: “When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and courts should not indulge in it. [Citation.] The plain language of the statute establishes what was intended by the Legislature. (See People v. Ramirez (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 374] [it is unnecessary to look beyond the plain words of the statute to determine intent].)” (People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 937 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 941 P.2d 1189]; Ladd v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Ladd v. County of San MateoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. FuhrmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.