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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cersosimo v. Town of Townshendgreen1 sentence2026Co., supra, 53 Cal. at pp. 227-228; see also, e.g., Cersosimo v. Town of Townshend (1981) 139 Vt. 594 , 35 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY v. APPLE VALLEY RANCHOS WATER Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 597; Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. WR-SRI 120th North LLC (2018) 191 Wn.2d 223 , 250.) In all events, given the complex and multifaceted nature of the policy considerations involved, the Town’s objection to this approach “ ‘is best directed to the Legislature, which can study the various policy and factual questions and decide what rules are best for society.’ ” (Brown v. City of Ingl | 1 | 1 |
DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc.green1 sentence2020(See DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 666, 676 [new theory on summary judgment]; Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11 [“Obvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant”].) Even if we were to consider the point, we would reject it. | 1 | 1 |
Varjabedian v. City of Maderagreen1 sentence2020(See DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 666, 676 [new theory on summary judgment]; Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11 [“Obvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant”].) Even if we were to consider the point, we would reject it. | 1 | 1 |
Durkee v. Chino Land and Water Co.green2 sentences2010(See Panopulos v. Maderis (1956) 47 Cal.2d 337, 340-341 [ 303 P.2d 738 ] [party may not raise new theory on appeal]; Durkee v. Chino Land & Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 561, 569 [ 91 P. 389 ] [defendant cannot raise new theory of defense on appeal].) In any event, the evidence does not support the Town’s claim that it desired to comply with the Development Agreement in good faith. 2010(See Panopulos v. Maderis (1956) 47 Cal.2d 337, 340-341 [ 303 P.2d 738 ] [party may not raise new theory on appeal]; Durkee v. Chino Land & Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 561, 569 [ 91 P. 389 ] [defendant cannot raise new theory of defense on appeal].) In any event, the evidence does not support the Town’s claim that it desired to comply with the Development Agreement in good faith. | 1 | 1 |
Panopulos v. Maderisgreen2 sentences2010(See Panopulos v. Maderis (1956) 47 Cal.2d 337, 340-341 [ 303 P.2d 738 ] [party may not raise new theory on appeal]; Durkee v. Chino Land & Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 561, 569 [ 91 P. 389 ] [defendant cannot raise new theory of defense on appeal].) In any event, the evidence does not support the Town’s claim that it desired to comply with the Development Agreement in good faith. 2010(See Panopulos v. Maderis (1956) 47 Cal.2d 337, 340-341 [ 303 P.2d 738 ] [party may not raise new theory on appeal]; Durkee v. Chino Land & Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 561, 569 [ 91 P. 389 ] [defendant cannot raise new theory of defense on appeal].) In any event, the evidence does not support the Town’s claim that it desired to comply with the Development Agreement in good faith. | 1 | 1 |
Haskell v. Carligreen2 sentences1998(Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 130 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) On appeal, our review is de novo. 1998(Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 130 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) On appeal, our review is de novo. | 1 | 1 |
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agencygreen2 sentences1998Under pertinent authority, we are not required to engage in “the virtual impossibility of determining what development will be permitted on a particular lot of land when its use is subject to the decision of *332 a regulatory body invested with great discretion, which it has not yet even been asked to exercise.” (Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, supra, 520 U.S. at p. 739 [ 117 S.Ct. at p. 1667 ].) Thus, Toigo’s claim for a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not ripe and was properly dismissed on the Town’s motion for summary adjudication. 1998Under pertinent authority, we are not required to engage in “the virtual impossibility of determining what development will be permitted on a particular lot of land when its use is subject to the decision of *332 a regulatory body invested with great discretion, which it has not yet even been asked to exercise.” (Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, supra, 520 U.S. at p. 739 [ 117 S.Ct. at p. 1667 ].) Thus, Toigo’s claim for a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not ripe and was properly dismissed on the Town’s motion for summary adjudication. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carrisales v. Department of Corrections
red
1 sentence2026Co., supra, 53 Cal. at pp. 227-228; see also, e.g., Cersosimo v. Town of Townshend (1981) 139 Vt. 594 , 35 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY v. APPLE VALLEY RANCHOS WATER Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 597; Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. WR-SRI 120th North LLC (2018) 191 Wn.2d 223 , 250.) In all events, given the complex and multifaceted nature of the policy considerations involved, the Town’s objection to this approach “ ‘is best directed to the Legislature, which can study the various policy and factual questions and decide what rules are best for society.’ ” (Brown v. City of Ingl | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brown v. City of Inglewood
green
1 sentence2026Co., supra, 53 Cal. at pp. 227-228; see also, e.g., Cersosimo v. Town of Townshend (1981) 139 Vt. 594 , 35 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY v. APPLE VALLEY RANCHOS WATER Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 597; Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. WR-SRI 120th North LLC (2018) 191 Wn.2d 223 , 250.) In all events, given the complex and multifaceted nature of the policy considerations involved, the Town’s objection to this approach “ ‘is best directed to the Legislature, which can study the various policy and factual questions and decide what rules are best for society.’ ” (Brown v. City of Ingl | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rudick v. State Board of Optometry
green
1 sentence2022This we take as an implicit concession that Martha’s waiver argument is sound, (Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77 , 89-90), meaning the merits were not preserved for review.31 (§ 21177, subd. (a); Stop Syar Expansion v. 31 This may also be deduced from Judge Chou’s statement of decision. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
City of Emeryville v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1998I, § 19.) In ruling on the Town’s motion for summary adjudication of the taking issue, the trial court held the evidence “conclusively shows” that Toigo’s takings claim “is not ripe for judicial review.” The court found the undisputed material facts did not support “a reasonable inference that the [Tjown made a ‘final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property.’ [Citation].” The court concluded Toigo had not yet obtained a final decision because “denial of approvals for a particular and relatively intensive development ‘ca 1998I, § 19.) In ruling on the Town’s motion for summary adjudication of the taking issue, the trial court held the evidence “conclusively shows” that Toigo’s takings claim “is not ripe for judicial review.” The court found the undisputed material facts did not support “a reasonable inference that the [Tjown made a ‘final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property.’ [Citation].” The court concluded Toigo had not yet obtained a final decision because “denial of approvals for a particular and relatively intensive development ‘ca | 1 | 1998–1998 |
President of Waupun v. Moore
neutral
1 sentence1929Again, an injunction will be granted to a person expressly injured to prevent the removal of a wooden building from outside to within the fire limits of a town in violation of an ordinance, or to restrain the erection of such a building within the fire limits where the act, if carried out, would amount to a nuisance; but the mere violation of the ordinance is no ground for relief unless the acts themselves actually constitute a nuisance.” A nuisance is defined by our Civil Code, section 3479, as follows: “Anything which is injurious to health or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an ob | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.