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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sexton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Countygreen1 sentence2026(See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [untimely motions to compel “renders the court without authority to rule on [the motions] other than to deny them”].) The failure to timely challenge inadequate deposition testimony in the trial court forfeits the issue. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Daimler AG CA1/4green1 sentence2026(Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 867, fn. 7 .) Accordingly, Kenny has not demonstrated prejudicial misconduct, and the trial court acted within its discretion in denying his new trial motion on that ground. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Harrisred1 sentence2021Any petition for review of a judge’s order to transfer jurisdiction of the child to the criminal court, or denying an application for rehearing of the referee’s determination to transfer jurisdiction of the child to the criminal court, must be filed no later than 20 days after the child’s first arraignment on an accusatory pleading based on the allegations that led to the transfer of jurisdiction order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(g).) 9 waived but which . . . the accused nevertheless preserved by timely if unsuccessful action.” (People v. Chi Ko Wong, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 716 ; see In | 1 | 1 |
People v. Justin S.green2 sentences2004Our colleagues in Division Four of this court, in In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 466 ( Justin S. ), had occasion to consider the application of Welch to a minor's failure to object in the trial court to a probation condition *448 that a defendant not "`associate with any gang members and anyone disapproved of by parent(s)....'" ( Justin S., at p. 813, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 466 .) On appeal, the minor challenged the condition as vague and overbroad. 2004Our colleagues in Division Four of this court, in In re Justin S. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 811 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 466 ( Justin S. ), had occasion to consider the application of Welch to a minor's failure to object in the trial court to a probation condition *448 that a defendant not "`associate with any gang members and anyone disapproved of by parent(s)....'" ( Justin S., at p. 813, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 466 .) On appeal, the minor challenged the condition as vague and overbroad. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1980The rights could be lost by such occurrences as transfer, waiver, adjudication or, as Sharolyn asserts here, the failure to timely claim them (see Lewis v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 844, 852-853 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]). 1980The rights could be lost by such occurrences as transfer, waiver, adjudication or, as Sharolyn asserts here, the failure to timely claim them (see Lewis v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 844, 852-853 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Chi Ko Wong
red
1 sentence2021Any petition for review of a judge’s order to transfer jurisdiction of the child to the criminal court, or denying an application for rehearing of the referee’s determination to transfer jurisdiction of the child to the criminal court, must be filed no later than 20 days after the child’s first arraignment on an accusatory pleading based on the allegations that led to the transfer of jurisdiction order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(g).) 9 waived but which . . . the accused nevertheless preserved by timely if unsuccessful action.” (People v. Chi Ko Wong, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 716 ; see In | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Johnson v. City of Loma Linda
green
2 sentences2010(Johnson, at p. 67.) We affirmed the judgment in Johnson with respect to the FEHA cause of action, explaining that the city’s “administrative process provides internal remedies” and that the employee had “fail[ed] to obtain the requisite judicial review of [the] adverse administrative finding.” (Johnson, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 72 .) We concluded on the particular procedural facts of the case that “when, as here, a public employee pursues administrative civil service remedies, receives an adverse finding, and fails to have the finding set aside through judicial review procedures, the adverse f 2010The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the FEHA discrimination claim failed because the employee was bound by the city's administrative findings. ( Johnson, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 65-67.) The Court of Appeal held that the employee's failure to timely challenge the administrative finding by the city that his dismissal was for economic reasons barred his FEHA cause of action alleging that his termination was for discriminatory reasons. ( Johnson, at p. 67.) *877 We affirmed the judgment in Johnson with respect to the FEHA cause of action, explaining that the city's "administrative p | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Welch
green
2 sentences2004On appeal, the defendant urged that the conditions were improper on Bushman/Lent grounds [4] and that his failure to object in the trial court did not preclude appellate review because the type of error constituted an "`unauthorized sentence,'" entered "`in excess of jurisdiction'" and thus could be raised at any time. ( Id. at p. 235, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 , 851 P.2d 802 .) The Supreme Court held that the failure to timely challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition on Bushman/Lent grounds waived the claim on appeal because a timely objection discouraged imposition of invalid condition 2004On appeal, the defendant urged that the conditions were improper on Bushman/Lent grounds [4] and that his failure to object in the trial court did not preclude appellate review because the type of error constituted an "`unauthorized sentence,'" entered "`in excess of jurisdiction'" and thus could be raised at any time. ( Id. at p. 235, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 , 851 P.2d 802 .) The Supreme Court held that the failure to timely challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition on Bushman/Lent grounds waived the claim on appeal because a timely objection discouraged imposition of invalid condition | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.