McNee v. Lynch
Citations
- 88 Cal. 519
- 26 P. 508
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 726
Syllabus
<p>Swamp-lands — Suitableness fob Cultivation—Rights of Actual Settlers — Case Affirmed. — Fulton v. Braman, ante, p. 454, affirmed to the point that state swamp-lands which are suitable for cultivation can be granted only to actual settlers in tracts not exceeding 320 acres.</p> <p>Id.—Contest — Intervention by Actual Settler.—An actual settler upon swamp-lands, who shows that he has presented a proper application to purchase the same, may intervene in a contest referred from the state land-office to the superior court for adjudication, and it is not error to refuse to strike from his petition allegations showing the suitableness of the land for cultivation, and Ms actual settlement thereon and application to purchase the same, and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has ever resided upon the land.</p> <p>Id.—Petition of Amicus CurM'—Discretion — Error without Prejudice. — Although the petition in intervention filed by an actual settler may not show Ms right to intervene in the contest, the court, having the duty cast upon it to inquire whether either party to the contest is entitled to purchase the land, and to adjudge accordingly, may, in its discretion, allow the intervener, as an amicus curios, to show that neither of the contestants was qualified to'purchase the land; and if the intervenor takes nothing by the judgment, and it does not appear that the party appealing was injured, the judgment will not be reversed because the court refused to strike out the petition and overruled a demurrer thereto.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that bolstering testimony unlikely to be harmful because it is not surprising that law enforcement would believe the victim’s account, “and any rational juror could have surmised as much without being told explicitly”
- bolstering testimony unlikely to be harmful because it is not surprising that law enforcement would believe the victim’s account, “and any rational juror could have surmised as much without being told explicitly”
- no prejudice for bolstering of a victim’s testimony by another witness, where the evidence of guilt was strong and victim’s testimony was supported by other evidence
- because the habeas petitioner failed to show * that his counsel on direct appeal could have prevailed on the claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was found to be without merit
- because the habeas petitioner failed to show that his counsel on direct appeal could have prevailed on the claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was found to be without merit
- “Because appellate counsel could not have prevailed on a claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not pursuing such a cross-examination, appellant cannot show prejudice on his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to assert such a claim on appeal.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Temple
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.