California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 3541 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1941–2024 · leading case: Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008).
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008). “) The TONC did not expressly reference indemnity rights, and we should not read it as encompassing a waiver of Edwards’s indemnity rights. Giving the TONC such a reading is consistent with the tenets of contractual interpretation because it makes the contract lawful, valid and…”
Michael Cuero v. Matthew Cate, 827 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2016). “Cal. Civ. Code § 3541 . 12 As in Buckley, where we noted that the state court’s decision denying habeas neither mentioned state contract law nor referred to the terms of the plea agreement, nothing in the second Superior Court judge’s decision permitting the state prosecutor’s…”
J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “, that every part of a statute or instrument must be given effect to the extent possible (Civ. Code, § 3541; Code Civ. Proc., § 1858) and should be interpreted reasonably (Civ.”
Subcontracting Concepts (CT), LLC v. De Melo, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 838 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “Code, § 1643 ["A contract must receive an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties"]; Civ. Code, § 3541 ["An interpretation which gives…”
24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cty., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “Pointing to this discrepancy, Munshaw argues there was no mutual assent and, hence, no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The argument is unpersuasive.”
City of Emeryville v. Cohen, 233 Cal. App. 4th 293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “” Thus, section 34178 was intended to allow prior agreements to be reentered into, subject to oversight board approval, and possible review by the Department.”
Khavarian Enter., Inc. v. Commline, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “” (Civ. Code, § 3541.) Because we interpret the parties’ settlement agreement without resort to extrinsic evidence, we apply a de novo standard of review.”
Zellerino v. Brown, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “However, under the statute a ground for a protective order is the untimeliness of a demand. Zellerino’s argument effectively reads this provision out of the statute, since if a party can void a demand ab initio on the ground it was untimely there would be no reason ever to move…”
Storch v. Silverman, 186 Cal. App. 3d 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “There is no need for immunity when there can be no liability, as in the case of reports that are true or based upon objectively reasonable suspicion.”
Lara v. Onsite Health, Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “Code § 1643 (if possible without violating the parties’ unambiguous intent, a contract is interpreted so as to make it “lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect”).”
Davis v. Norberg, 219 Cal. App. 3d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “” (Civ. Code, § 3541.) In its minute order granting Marilyn independent administration authority the court specifically granted her authority under section 591.”
United Teachers of Oakland v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 75 Cal. App. 3d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). “Code, § 3534), and that “An interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void” (Civ. Code, § 3541). He urges that Administrative Bulletin No.”
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.