Cal. Codes » Civil Code
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No part of it is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 753 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 753 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 6× “) Indeed, Civil Code section 3, one of the general statutory provisions governing the interpretation of all the provisions of the Civil Code — including the provision at issue in this case — represents a specific legislative codification of this general legal principle,…”
DiGenova v. State Bd. of Educ., 367 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1962). · cites it 4× “" (Civ. Code, § 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 3; Pen.”
People v. Brown, 278 P.3d 1182 (Cal. 2012). “When the Legislature has not made its intent on the matter clear with respect to a particular statute, the Legislature’s generally applicable declaration in section 3 provides the default rule: “No part of [the Penal Code] is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.”
People v. Vela, 11 Cal. App. 5th 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “Code, § 3; Civ. Code, § 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 3.)”
People v. Vela, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “Further undesignated statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code.”
Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Eugene B., 192 Cal. App. 3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “) Civil Code section 3 provides that “No part of [the Civil Code] is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.”
People v. Hayes, 783 P.2d 719 (Cal. 1989). · cites it 2× “" (Civ. Code, § 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 3; Pen.”
Cabral v. Martins, 177 Cal. App. 4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “The child support evasion statutes were not enacted until over a year later, and did not become effective until January 1, 2007.”
Hohm v. City of Rapid City, 2008 SD 65 (S.D. 2008). · cites it 2× “Dak, Civil Code § 3 (1877)) to override the common law is "[b]y statutes enacted by the Legislature[.”
Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “Cal. Civ. Code § 3 . Section 2923.52 does not contain any retroactivity declarations.”
Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 420 P.2d 735 (Cal. 1966). · cites it 2× “1 does not apply to any of the four judgments here on appeal. [18] We begin with the general presumption that legislative changes do not apply retroactively unless the Legislature expresses its intention that they should do so.”
Hogan v. Ingold, 243 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1952). · cites it 2× “At best those words are equivocal and must be read in the light of section 4 of the Corporations Code that: "No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code, but all procedure thereafter *823 taken…”
Show all 59 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.