32 California opinions name it 3 courts 1958–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2022“The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception ‘can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.’” (Jonathan Neil, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 936 .) There is no evidence in this case that CalPERS has declared what its ruling will be on any of the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. 2018The "futility" exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies "is a very narrow one." ( County of Contra Costa v. State of California (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62 , 77, 222 Cal.Rptr. 750 .) "Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused if it is clear that exhaustion would be futile." ( Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917 , 936, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 , 94 P.3d 1055 .) " 'The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception "can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case." ' " ( Coachella Valley | 5 | 9 |
Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2024(Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080-1081 [“‘The futility exception [to the rule of exhaustion] requires that the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case”’”].) Although the 2019 State Water Board petition does reference Water Code section 13241, that petition does not present the exact issue that Camarillo now propounds on appeal. 2022While an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies exists where “ ‘it is clear that exhaustion would be futile.’ ” (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080 .) “ ‘The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 1080–1081.) Here, the record does not 20 “positively” indicate how the Board would have decided Lehman’s appeal had he fully availed himself of the appea | 3 | 9 |
San Diego Municipal Employees Ass'n v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017(See San Diego Municipal Employees Assn. v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1447 , 1459, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 , quoting Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917 , 936, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 , 94 P.3d 1055 [noting the " '[f]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused if it is clear that exhaustion would be futile' " and further noting the " 'futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception "can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case" ' "].) 2017(See San Diego Municipal Employees Assn. v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1447 , 1459, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 , quoting Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917 , 936, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 , 94 P.3d 1055 [noting the " '[f]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused if it is clear that exhaustion would be futile' " and further noting the " 'futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception "can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case" ' "].) | 1 | 3 |
Imagistics International, Inc. v. Department of General Servicesgreen2 sentences2015“If an administrative remedy fails to satisfy the standards of due process, the exhaustion requirement is excused.” (Imagistics Internat., Inc. v. Department of General Services (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 18 ]; see Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 936, fn. 7 [“ ‘ “[i]f the [administrative] remedy provided does not itself square with the requirements of due process the exhaustion doctrine has no application” ’ ”].) The administrative remedy is also inadequate where the challenged administrative procedures “ ‘ “are the very source of the assert 2015“If an administrative remedy fails to satisfy the standards of due process, the exhaustion requirement is excused.” (Imagistics Internat., Inc. v. Department of General Services (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 18 ]; see Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 936, fn. 7 [“ ‘ “[i]f the [administrative] remedy provided does not itself square with the requirements of due process the exhaustion doctrine has no application” ’ ”].) The administrative remedy is also inadequate where the challenged administrative procedures “ ‘ “are the very source of the assert | 1 | 2 |
Upshaw v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.green1 sentence2026(See Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1080- 1081 [“‘The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.”’”]; Upshaw v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 489, 506 [plaintiff did not establish the futility exception applied where she did not “positively” state the decisionmaker “would have denied [her] grievance had she submitted one”].) Smith needed to pursue her administrative remedies wit | 1 | 1 |
Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Commissiongreen1 sentence2017(See Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 418 [futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “‘“positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be in a particular case”’”].) The SAC did not allege that MBUSD positively declared what its ruling would be on any defamation and deceit claims presented to it. | 1 | 1 |
Park 'N Fly of San Francisco, Inc. v. City of South San Franciscogreen1 sentence2015Malkenhorst argues that exhausting his administrative remedies would be futile because the issues have already been fully argued and decided in the administrative process and “there is no administrative remedy in the APA or OAH to preclude a second hearing . . . .” While futility is an exception to the exhaustion requirement, the exception “requires that the party invoking the exception ‘can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.’ [Citation.]” (Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917, 936 [finding administrative proceed | 1 | 1 |
Burrill v. Nair CA3green1 sentence2014(Carver v. Bonds [(2005] 135 Cal.App.4th [328] 348–349; Mann[v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004)] 120 Cal.App.4th [90] 109.)” (Burrill v. Nair (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 396 (Burrill).) “‘The privilege applies if the substance of the publication or broadcast captures the gist or sting of the statements made in the official proceedings.’ [Citations.] If Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d) applies, the statement is absolutely privileged regardless of the defendant’s motive for reporting it. [Citation.]” ( Hawran, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 13 at p. 278 .) The fair report privilege has been | 1 | 1 |
Reiter v. Coopergreen2 sentences2004(See Reiter v. Cooper (1993) 507 U.S. 258, 268-269 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 604 , 113 S.Ct. 1213 ] [proceeding to be stayed unless in the interest of justice the trial court dismisses without prejudice].) On remand, the Joneses, if they wish to continue the action, must pursue the DOI’s administrative remedies to its conclusion. 2004(See Reiter v. Cooper (1993) 507 U.S. 258, 268-269 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 604 , 113 S.Ct. 1213 ] [proceeding to be stayed unless in the interest of justice the trial court dismisses without prejudice].) On remand, the Joneses, if they wish to continue the action, must pursue the DOI’s administrative remedies to its conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Charles H. Keating, Jr. v. Office of Thrift Supervisiongreen1 sentence2001Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 882, citing People v. Coleman, supra, at p. 886 ; Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 326 [refusal to stay proceedings not abuse of discretion].) Other accommodations have included conferring an immunity on the party invoking the privilege (see Blackburn v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 431-432 [discussing procedure for obtaining immunity]), or precluding a litigant who claims the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in discovery from waiving the privilege and testifying at trial to matters upon which | 1 | 1 |
A & M RECORDS, INC. v. Heilmangreen1 sentence2001(A & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d at p. 566 [circumscribed testimony preclusion not abuse of discretion].) Each of these procedural tools is devised based on the circumstances of the particular case. “ ‘[T]he alleviation of tension between constitutional rights has been treated as within the province of a court’s discretion in seeking to assure the sound administration of justice.’ ” (Avant! | 1 | 1 |
| Ribble v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gigliotti v. Nunesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2021Futility The “futility” exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies “is a very narrow one.” (County of Contra Costa v. State of California (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62, 77 .) “ ‘The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.” ’ ” (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072 , 1080–1081; Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1298, 1313 .) Here, Foster does not contend that prison 2021Futility is a narrow exception which applies only when the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the administrative agency has declared what its ruling will be in a particular case.” (Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1298, 1313 .) That was not the case here. | 4 | 2018–2021 |
Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
green
2 sentences2018"A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location." ( Berkeley Hillside , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105 , 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643 , 343 P.3d 834 .) The Class 3 exemption applies to small structures, including "utility extensions." While rural areas may not need as many utility extensions as urban areas, ARA produced no evidence that it is unusual for small structures to be used to provide utility extensions 2018"A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location." ( Berkeley Hillside , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105 , 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643 , 343 P.3d 834 .) The Class 3 exemption applies to small structures, including "utility extensions." While rural areas may not need as many utility extensions as urban areas, ARA produced no evidence that it is unusual for small structures to be used to provide utility extensions | 4 | 2015–2018 |
County of Contra Costa v. State of California
green
2 sentences2021Futility The “futility” exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies “is a very narrow one.” (County of Contra Costa v. State of California (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62, 77 .) “ ‘The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.” ’ ” (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072 , 1080–1081; Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1298, 1313 .) Here, Foster does not contend that prison 2018The "futility" exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies "is a very narrow one." ( County of Contra Costa v. State of California (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 62 , 77, 222 Cal.Rptr. 750 .) "Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused if it is clear that exhaustion would be futile." ( Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917 , 936, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 , 94 P.3d 1055 .) " 'The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception "can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case." ' " ( Coachella Valley | 3 | 2018–2021 |
Farahani v. San Diego Community College District
green
1 sentence2026There is no legal or factual support for Smith’s assertion “the requirement to seek administrative review would have had no effect given that [the District] had already determined that [the] time to seek corrective action was over.” Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486 and Doster v. County of San Diego (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 257 , cited by Smith, are distinguishable. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Doster v. County of San Diego
green
1 sentence2026There is no legal or factual support for Smith’s assertion “the requirement to seek administrative review would have had no effect given that [the District] had already determined that [the] time to seek corrective action was over.” Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1486 and Doster v. County of San Diego (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 257 , cited by Smith, are distinguishable. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
green
1 sentence2024Alaska, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1262 ; State Farm, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 643 .) Put another way, a party invoking the exception must make a prima facie showing of a crime, as well as “ ‘a reasonable relationship’ ” between the crime and the attorney-client communication. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Superior Court (Bauman & Rose)
green
1 sentence2024(Bauman & Rose, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1769 .) The crime-fraud exception “cannot open defendant’s files or give plaintiffs carte blanche with respect to attorney-client communications. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024Alaska, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1262 ; State Farm, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 643 .) Put another way, a party invoking the exception must make a prima facie showing of a crime, as well as “ ‘a reasonable relationship’ ” between the crime and the attorney-client communication. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Leo v. Dunham
green
1 sentence2021(See Leo, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 715 ; Damele, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 37 .) Likewise, whether the party invoking the doctrine was free of negligence is also a question of fact for the exclusive determination of the trier of 26 fact. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Grinstead v. Krushkhov
green
2 sentences2021(Grinstead v. Krushkhov (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 793, 796 .) Conflicting testimony regarding the reasonableness of the conduct of the party invoking the doctrine is for the trier of fact to determine. 2021(Grinstead v. Krushkhov (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 793, 796 .) Conflicting testimony regarding the reasonableness of the conduct of the party invoking the doctrine is for the trier of fact to determine. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Damele v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021(See Leo, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 715 ; Damele, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 37 .) Likewise, whether the party invoking the doctrine was free of negligence is also a question of fact for the exclusive determination of the trier of 26 fact. 2021(See Leo, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 715 ; Damele, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 37 .) Likewise, whether the party invoking the doctrine was free of negligence is also a question of fact for the exclusive determination of the trier of 26 fact. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission
green
1 sentence2021(Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 496 .) However, “[t]he doctrine requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to exceptions. [Citation.] Under one of these exceptions, ‘[f]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused if it is clear that exhaustion would be futile.’ [Citations.] ‘The futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “ ‘can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case.” ’ ” (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Emplo | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Stickel v. Durfee
green
2 sentences2021(See Stickel v. Durfee (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 405-406 .) The requirement that the party invoking the doctrine be free from negligence is satisfied by substantial evidence. 2021(See Stickel v. Durfee (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 402, 405-406 .) The requirement that the party invoking the doctrine be free from negligence is satisfied by substantial evidence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
green
1 sentence2021(Sills, supra, 40 Cal.2d at p. 636 .) Fundamentally, “no one suddenly confronted with an unexpected peril is to be held responsible for omitting precautions which hindsight might indicate would have avoided the accident. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
SJCBC LLC v. Horwedel
green
1 sentence2021We exercise independent review over questions of law such as the interpretation of applicable statutes or codes and whether the Doctrine applies in a given case.” (SJCBC, LLC v. Horwedel (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 339, 345 .) However, “we apply the substantial evidence test to factual matters concerning what a party did or did not do.” (Ibid.) Thus, questions regarding whether a party failed to exhaust administrative remedies are reviewed for substantial evidence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Absmeier v. Simi Valley Unified School District
green
1 sentence2015(See Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1080-1081 [“‘[t]he futility exception requires that the party invoking the exception “can positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be on a particular case”’”], quoting, Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917, 936 .) AHF also argues it was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies because the remedy was inadequate. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hawran v. Hixson
green
1 sentence2014(Carver v. Bonds [(2005] 135 Cal.App.4th [328] 348–349; Mann[v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004)] 120 Cal.App.4th [90] 109.)” (Burrill v. Nair (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 396 (Burrill).) “‘The privilege applies if the substance of the publication or broadcast captures the gist or sting of the statements made in the official proceedings.’ [Citations.] If Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d) applies, the statement is absolutely privileged regardless of the defendant’s motive for reporting it. [Citation.]” ( Hawran, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 13 at p. 278 .) The fair report privilege has been | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Arias v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2014(Arias v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 985 .) It is not necessary that the party invoking the doctrine in the prior proceeding have been a party to the prior proceeding, or bound by the judgment in that proceeding. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Lee
green
1 sentence2013Balancing these considerations, we adopt the rule set forth in Lee, supra, 3 Cal.App.3d 514 that the attorney-client privilege can protect the information coming to an attorney from the client’s agent as long as the agent is acting within the scope and authority of his agency. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.
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.