Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bargioni v. Hillgreen2 sentences2019The junior's right to recover should not be controlled by the whim of the senior, and there is no reason to extend the language of section 580d to reach that result." ( Roseleaf , supra , 59 Cal.2d at p. 44 , 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ; see Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121 , 122, 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 [citing Roseleaf 's holding that section 580d"bars recovery only on a note secured by a trust deed or mortgage that has been rendered valueless by a sale under a power of sale contained in the trust deed or *588 mortgage securing the note sued upon " (italics added) ].) Does o 2019The junior's right to recover should not be controlled by the whim of the senior, and there is no reason to extend the language of section 580d to reach that result." ( Roseleaf , supra , 59 Cal.2d at p. 44 , 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ; see Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121 , 122, 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 [citing Roseleaf 's holding that section 580d"bars recovery only on a note secured by a trust deed or mortgage that has been rendered valueless by a sale under a power of sale contained in the trust deed or *588 mortgage securing the note sued upon " (italics added) ].) Does o | 2 | 2 |
Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighinogreen2 sentences2019The junior's right to recover should not be controlled by the whim of the senior, and there is no reason to extend the language of section 580d to reach that result." ( Roseleaf , supra , 59 Cal.2d at p. 44 , 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ; see Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121 , 122, 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 [citing Roseleaf 's holding that section 580d"bars recovery only on a note secured by a trust deed or mortgage that has been rendered valueless by a sale under a power of sale contained in the trust deed or *588 mortgage securing the note sued upon " (italics added) ].) Does o 2019The junior's right to recover should not be controlled by the whim of the senior, and there is no reason to extend the language of section 580d to reach that result." ( Roseleaf , supra , 59 Cal.2d at p. 44 , 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ; see Bargioni v. Hill (1963) 59 Cal.2d 121 , 122, 28 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 378 P.2d 593 [citing Roseleaf 's holding that section 580d"bars recovery only on a note secured by a trust deed or mortgage that has been rendered valueless by a sale under a power of sale contained in the trust deed or *588 mortgage securing the note sued upon " (italics added) ].) Does o | 1 | 7 |
Simon v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017The junior's right to recover should not be controlled by the whim of the senior, and there is no reason to extend the language of section 580d to reach that result ." ( *797 Roseleaf , su pra , 59 Cal.2d at pp. 43-44, 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 , italics added.) In Simon , supra , 4 Cal.App.4th 63 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 , the court held that section 580d does preclude a deficiency judgment when the same lender is both the senior lienholder and the junior lienholder. ( Simon , at p. 77, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 .) The court reasoned as follows: "The Supreme Court in Roseleaf found [that] the purpose 2017The junior's right to recover should not be controlled by the whim of the senior, and there is no reason to extend the language of section 580d to reach that result ." ( *797 Roseleaf , su pra , 59 Cal.2d at pp. 43-44, 27 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 , italics added.) In Simon , supra , 4 Cal.App.4th 63 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 , the court held that section 580d does preclude a deficiency judgment when the same lender is both the senior lienholder and the junior lienholder. ( Simon , at p. 77, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 .) The court reasoned as follows: "The Supreme Court in Roseleaf found [that] the purpose | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of Amerika National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Graves
green
2 sentences2001In Bank of America v. Graves *1235 (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 607 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 288 ] (Graves), the bank, which held a second deed of trust on the Graveses’ home, permitted the holder of the first deed of trust on the property to complete its nonjudicial foreclosure first. 2001In Bank of America v. Graves *1235 (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 607 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 288 ] (Graves), the bank, which held a second deed of trust on the Graveses’ home, permitted the holder of the first deed of trust on the property to complete its nonjudicial foreclosure first. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Stephenson v. Lawn
green
2 sentences1966The inapplicability of 'section 580d to such a situation was, moreover, considered in Stephenson v. Lawn, 155 Cal.App.2d 669 [ 318 P.2d 132 ], There the defendants sold certain real property to Donald and Wanda Lindell in consideration for which the Lindells gave the defendants a promissory note secured by a second deed of ■trust. 1966The inapplicability of 'section 580d to such a situation was, moreover, considered in Stephenson v. Lawn, 155 Cal.App.2d 669 [ 318 P.2d 132 ], There the defendants sold certain real property to Donald and Wanda Lindell in consideration for which the Lindells gave the defendants a promissory note secured by a second deed of ■trust. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.