California Supreme Court, 1973

People v. Krivda

California Supreme Court · Decided January 4, 1973

504 P.2d 457; 8 Cal. 3d 623; 105 Cal. Rptr. 521; 1973 Cal. LEXIS 240 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

50 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Boland (Wash. 1990)
People v. Dumas (Cal. 1973)
State v. Boland (Wash. Ct. App. 1989)
California v. Rooney (Supreme Court of the United States 1987)
People v. Riegler (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)
People v. Smith (Cal. 1976)
Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Board of Education (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
Diamond v. Bland (Cal. 1974)
Guidi v. Superior Court (Cal. 1973)
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray (Minn. 2015)
People v. Cook (Cal. 1985)
United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 987 Fisher Road (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1989)
People v. Greenwood (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)
Cooks v. State (Okla. Crim. App. 1985)
State v. Ronngren (N.D. 1985)
People v. Rooney (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)
People v. Chapman (Cal. 1984)
State v. Oquist (Minn. 1982)
Commonwealth v. Minton (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)
State v. Schultz (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
United States v. Floyd A. Vahalik (5th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Thomas Leonard Shelby (7th Cir. 1978)
Venner v. State (Md. 1977)
United States v. Shelby (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

THE COURT.

The Supreme Court of the United States on October 24, 1972, issued its judgment and mandate that “the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in this cause be vacated, and that this cause be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of California for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.”

The opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reported at 409 U.S. 33, 35 [34 L.Ed.2d 45, 46, 93 S.Ct. 32], in part stated that “After *624 briefing and argument ... we are unable to determine whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both. ... We therefore vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. . [Citations.]”

Pursuant to the mandate hereinabove quoted we have reexamined our opinion in the subject case (reported at 5 Cal.3d 357 [96 Cal.Rptr. 62, 486 P.2d 1262]) and certify that we relied upon both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 19, of the California Constitution, and that accordingly the latter provision furnished an independent ground to support the result we reached in that opinion. Inasmuch as we deem it unnecessary to alter or amend our prior decision, we reiterate that decision in its entirety.

Let the remittitur issue forthwith.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.