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 1 courts 2006–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciottagreen1 sentence2026(See Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 813 [“It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.”].) 6 Because the only issue before us is the propriety of the trial court’s order denying Ronald’s motion for leave to intervene, we do not address Ronald’s arguments concerning whether the LLC is the true plaintiff, whether the suit was brought by Sheri as an alter ego, and whether Sheri lacks standin | 1 | 1 |
Mansell v. Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement Systemgreen2 sentences2007(Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 ].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2007(Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 574 ].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Jaffe v. Carrollgreen2 sentences2006Because we conclude Ronald was not entitled to summary judgment, we need not consider this contention. 5 The elements of a gift are: “(1) competency of the donor to contract; (2) a voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift; (3) delivery, either actual or symbolical; (4) acceptance, actual or imputed; (5) complete divestment of all control by the donor; and (6) lack of consideration for the gift.” (Jaffe v. Carroll (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 53, 59 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 435 ].) 6 Ronald also suggests Carrie cannot establish the funds were a gift because a transfer of money does not constitut 2006Because we conclude Ronald was not entitled to summary judgment, we need not consider this contention. 5 The elements of a gift are: “(1) competency of the donor to contract; (2) a voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift; (3) delivery, either actual or symbolical; (4) acceptance, actual or imputed; (5) complete divestment of all control by the donor; and (6) lack of consideration for the gift.” (Jaffe v. Carroll (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 53, 59 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 435 ].) 6 Ronald also suggests Carrie cannot establish the funds were a gift because a transfer of money does not constitut | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mechling v. Asbestos
green
1 sentence2024Although we acknowledge that the issue was poorly developed below and understand the trial court’s ruling given Ronald’s superficial briefing, we nevertheless conclude that Ronald satisfied the “minimal showing” necessary for a potentially meritorious defense.6 (Mechling, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1246 .) 6 We do not consider Ronald’s claim that the civil penalties were unconstitutionally excessive because it was not raised in the trial court and has therefore been forfeited. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Park v. Park
green
1 sentence2024(Park, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 346 .) We therefore conclude that the trial court’s ruling exceeded the bounds of its discretion under the doctrine of extrinsic mistake. 17 DISPOSITION The order denying Ronald’s motion to vacate the judgment is reversed. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rayii v. Gatica CA2/3
green
1 sentence2020(Rayii, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1408 .) Given the court’s finding Ronald is “currently working” and earning $9,500 per month, Ronald’s claim the court abused its discretion by “imput[ing] income to a retired person” ( Reynolds, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th 1373 ) also fails as a matter of law.6 B. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Marriage of Reynolds
green
2 sentences2020(Rayii, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1408 .) Given the court’s finding Ronald is “currently working” and earning $9,500 per month, Ronald’s claim the court abused its discretion by “imput[ing] income to a retired person” ( Reynolds, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th 1373 ) also fails as a matter of law.6 B. 2020(Rayii, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1408 .) Given the court’s finding Ronald is “currently working” and earning $9,500 per month, Ronald’s claim the court abused its discretion by “imput[ing] income to a retired person” ( Reynolds, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th 1373 ) also fails as a matter of law.6 B. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Marriage of Duncan
green
1 sentence2020Nor did he present the trial court with the required evidence of “‘the respective incomes and needs of the parties[.]’” (Duncan, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 629 .) The lack of record references is not surprising, however, given that none of these four fees requests was a formal motion for fees, with supporting declarations or other documentary evidence relative to the attorney fees issue. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.