Court Cases

Treats § 134 (preparing false documentary evidence) as an offense distinct from forgery, filing, and offering false evidence; affirmed convictions on separately-charged §§ 134/470/115/132 counts.

ExposureThe § 134 lead authority. Note: this is People v. Horowitz — never In re Horowitz (see guards).

Addresses §§ 132/134; materiality is not an element of the offense.

ExposureElement framing for the false-evidence question. Do not conflate with People v. Shah (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 879 — a § 186.11 case (see guards).

Construes § 134 in the documentary-evidence context.

ExposureSupplemental § 134 authority.

Early construction of the false-evidence statute.

ExposureHistorical anchor for the § 134 line.

Source of the maxim that honesty in dealing with the courts is of paramount importance and that misleading a judge is a serious offense regardless of motive; six-month suspension imposed.

ExposureThe candor epigraph for the case file. Guard: this maxim is Paine — never Williams v. Superior Court.

Discipline for misleading the court by false pleading, under the predecessor to current rule 3.3 and the moral-turpitude statute.

ExposureCompanion candor authority. State Bar matter referenced here is under review; no finding has been made.

Fraud upon the court permits a judgment to be set aside at any time, without regard to ordinary finality.

ExposureThe vacatur framework if a fraud-on-the-court theory is reached.

Describes a fraud on the court as a scheme set in motion to interfere with the judicial system's ability to adjudicate impartially.

ExposureStandard articulation of the fraud-on-the-court standard.

A three-day notice that overstates the rent due — or demands rent more than one year past due — is defective and will not support an unlawful detainer; the landlord's remedy becomes an ordinary contract suit.

ExposureTests the amount and one-year scope stated in the notice. (Defect was conceded in Bevill; § 1161.1 estimate is a separate track.)

An overstatement of $5.96 on rent due rendered the three-day notice ineffective; the trial court had called it inconsequential and was reversed.

ExposureEven a small overstatement can defeat the notice. Pin 753 (corrected from a prior 763).

Carries Nourafchan's subsequent history; treated the offset-limitations language as dictum while the overstatement holding stands.

ExposureConfirms Nourafchan remains good law on overstatement.

Strict, not substantial, compliance governs the three-day notice; a defective notice leaves the landlord to an ordinary contract suit without restitution of possession.

ExposureThe strict-compliance rule, paired with Bevill.

Late fees and other non-rent charges may not be folded into a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.

ExposureTests whether non-rent sums were demanded in the notice.

A residential three-day notice overstating rent is wholly ineffective; strict compliance applies regardless of the landlord's business preference, with a narrow § 1161.1 estimate context.

ExposureAnchors the residential strict-compliance rule and the estimate caveat.

First recognized the retaliatory-eviction defense, tied to the repair-and-deduct remedy.

ExposureOrigin of the retaliation defense reached here.

Established the implied warranty of habitability as a defense in unlawful detainer.

ExposureThe habitability-defense backbone for the mold and repair issues.

Extended the common-law retaliation defense beyond tenantability complaints, applying a balancing test.

ExposureBroadens the retaliation framework.

Recognized retaliation as an affirmative cause of action, supporting compensatory and punitive recovery.

ExposureRetaliation as a claim, not only a defense.

Common-law retaliation survives for commercial tenants.

ExposureExtends the framework's reach.

Good-law authority within the § 1942.5 retaliation line.

ExposureRetaliation-statute construction.

Applies the § 1942.5 retaliation framework; pairs with CACI 4321.

ExposurePattern-instruction anchor for retaliation.

Landmark recognizing a constitutional defense to an unlawful detainer.

ExposureHistorical anchor; confirm pin on use.

The seminal federal retaliatory-eviction decision.

ExposureFederal counterpart to the state retaliation line; confirm pin on use.

Protects the true owner of a negotiable instrument collected or paid on a forged or missing indorsement; construes UCC § 3-419 proceeds.

ExposureLead authority on the two-payee check. Guard: the Cal.3d case — never the 354 F.Supp. 669 namesake.

Applies § 4207 to impose depositary-bank liability where check proceeds are diverted to a personal account.

ExposureThe bank-side warranty theory.

Confirmed that the UCC authorizes a drawer's direct suit against depositary and collecting banks.

ExposureDirect-suit authorization for the instrument theory.

Cited for trust-fund / instrument handling principles.

ExposureConfirm reporter and pin on use.

Listed by the Judicial Council at p. 1139 as instructional authority for CALCRIM No. 362 (consciousness of guilt: false statements) in the adoptive-admissions context; the holding on its own facts concerns possession of recently stolen property.

ExposureReserved consciousness-of-guilt instruction. Rely on the 1139 pin, not the case's stolen-property holding.

Cited by the Judicial Council at pp. 102-103 as CALCRIM No. 362 authority.

ExposureCompanion instructional authority; rely on the 102-103 pin.

Judicial Council authority for CALCRIM No. 378 (general consciousness of guilt); post-offense conduct may bear on consciousness of guilt.

ExposureReserved instruction; pin 497-500.

One who causes the use of the mails or wires in furtherance of a scheme is responsible for that use.

ExposureCausation element of the federal lens.

A mailing incident to an essential part of the scheme satisfies the mailing element.

ExposureDefines a qualifying mailing.

Materiality is an element of the federal mail, wire, and bank-fraud statutes.

ExposureMateriality requirement.

The mail- and wire-fraud statutes are construed in tandem.

ExposureParallel construction of the two statutes.

A mailing after the scheme has reached fruition is not in furtherance of it.

ExposureLimit on the mailing element.

Follows Kann: mailings not in furtherance fall outside the statute.

ExposureCompanion limit.

Each use of the mails in execution of a scheme is a separate offense.

ExposureEach-transmission-a-separate-offense principle.

Under § 1344(2), the government need not prove intent to defraud the bank itself.

ExposureBank-fraud element construction.

Section 1344 reaches a scheme to deprive a bank of property in its custody.

ExposureScope of the bank-fraud statute.

States the three wire-fraud elements (scheme, use of wires, specific intent); each use of the wires is a separate violation.

ExposureNinth Circuit element checklist; pin 792.

Wire fraud requires intent to deceive and cheat.

ExposureRefines the intent element; pin 1101 (not the People v. Miller line).

Mail/wire fraud; jury properly instructed on the elements.

ExposureAlways cite 65 F.3d 576 (bare name is ambiguous).

Ineffective-assistance matter in which counsel reasonably declined to present suspected perjured testimony.

ExposureCarries a caveat: the p. 211 parenthetical is a characterization of the court's reasoning, not the holding — confirm against the page.

Framing and in-line display of images; standard copyright cite.

ExposureColophon-cluster authority for the portal's own materials.