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.
29 California opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bertuccio v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016Local court decisions enjoining obstructions to access thus "do not threaten significant interference with labor board adjudications." ( Id. at p. 75, 160 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 603 P.2d 1341 ; see also Bertuccio v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 363 , 369-371, 173 Cal.Rptr. 411 .) As in Sears and Kaplan's, this case presents a state claim challenging union conduct the NLRA arguably prohibits, since engaging in indoor demonstrations could under some circumstances constitute an unfair labor practice. 2016Local court decisions enjoining obstructions to access thus "do not threaten significant interference with labor board adjudications." ( Id. at p. 75, 160 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 603 P.2d 1341 ; see also Bertuccio v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 363 , 369-371, 173 Cal.Rptr. 411 .) As in Sears and Kaplan's, this case presents a state claim challenging union conduct the NLRA arguably prohibits, since engaging in indoor demonstrations could under some circumstances constitute an unfair labor practice. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Cardenasgreen2 sentences2002(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 903-905 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ] [probative value “minimal at best” in light of evidence of friendships, and substantial danger of prejudice in that jury could infer defendant had a criminal disposition because gangs commit crimes]; People v. Davis (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 806, 813 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ] [“This case presents no exception to the well-settled rule that the use at trial of cumulative evidence of bias in the form of gang-affiliation evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Maestas (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1495 [ 2002(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 903-905 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ] [probative value “minimal at best” in light of evidence of friendships, and substantial danger of prejudice in that jury could infer defendant had a criminal disposition because gangs commit crimes]; People v. Davis (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 806, 813 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ] [“This case presents no exception to the well-settled rule that the use at trial of cumulative evidence of bias in the form of gang-affiliation evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Maestas (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1495 [ | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maestasgreen2 sentences2002(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 903-905 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ] [probative value “minimal at best” in light of evidence of friendships, and substantial danger of prejudice in that jury could infer defendant had a criminal disposition because gangs commit crimes]; People v. Davis (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 806, 813 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ] [“This case presents no exception to the well-settled rule that the use at trial of cumulative evidence of bias in the form of gang-affiliation evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Maestas (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1495 [ 2002(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 903-905 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ] [probative value “minimal at best” in light of evidence of friendships, and substantial danger of prejudice in that jury could infer defendant had a criminal disposition because gangs commit crimes]; People v. Davis (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 806, 813 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ] [“This case presents no exception to the well-settled rule that the use at trial of cumulative evidence of bias in the form of gang-affiliation evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Maestas (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1495 [ | 2 | 2 |
Spinney v. Downinggreen2 sentences1983“It is a general rule to which this case presents no exception that, when it is a part of the understanding between the parties that the terms of their contract are to be reduced to writing and signed by the parties, the assent to its terms must be evidenced in the manner agreed upon or it does not become a binding or completed contract.” (Spinney v. Downing (1895) 108 Cal. 666, 668 [ 41 P. 797 ]; see also, Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co. (1914) 167 Cal. 397, 400 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Pacific R. 1983“It is a general rule to which this case presents no exception that, when it is a part of the understanding between the parties that the terms of their contract are to be reduced to writing and signed by the parties, the assent to its terms must be evidenced in the manner agreed upon or it does not become a binding or completed contract.” (Spinney v. Downing (1895) 108 Cal. 666, 668 [ 41 P. 797 ]; see also, Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co. (1914) 167 Cal. 397, 400 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Pacific R. | 1 | 4 |
Las Palmas Winery & Distillery v. Garrett & Co.green2 sentences1983“It is a general rule to which this case presents no exception that, when it is a part of the understanding between the parties that the terms of their contract are to be reduced to writing and signed by the parties, the assent to its terms must be evidenced in the manner agreed upon or it does not become a binding or completed contract.” (Spinney v. Downing (1895) 108 Cal. 666, 668 [ 41 P. 797 ]; see also, Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co. (1914) 167 Cal. 397, 400 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Pacific R. 1983“It is a general rule to which this case presents no exception that, when it is a part of the understanding between the parties that the terms of their contract are to be reduced to writing and signed by the parties, the assent to its terms must be evidenced in the manner agreed upon or it does not become a binding or completed contract.” (Spinney v. Downing (1895) 108 Cal. 666, 668 [ 41 P. 797 ]; see also, Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co. (1914) 167 Cal. 397, 400 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Pacific R. | 1 | 2 |
Linnard v. Sonnenscheingreen2 sentences1959It is well settled that, if the parties intend a reduction of their proposed agreement to writing before it can be considered complete, there is no contract until the formal agreement is signed (Store Properties, Inc. v. Neal, 72 Cal.App.2d 112 [ 164 P.2d 38 ]; Spinney v. Downing, 108 Cal. 666 [ 41 P. 797 ]; Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co., 167 Cal. 397 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Linnard v. Sonnenschein, 94 Cal.App. 729 [272 P. 315]; Kessinger v. Organic Fertilizers, Inc., 151 Cal.App.2d 741 [ 312 P.2d 345 ] ; American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 69 1959It is well settled that, if the parties intend a reduction of their proposed agreement to writing before it can be considered complete, there is no contract until the formal agreement is signed (Store Properties, Inc. v. Neal, 72 Cal.App.2d 112 [ 164 P.2d 38 ]; Spinney v. Downing, 108 Cal. 666 [ 41 P. 797 ]; Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co., 167 Cal. 397 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Linnard v. Sonnenschein, 94 Cal.App. 729 [272 P. 315]; Kessinger v. Organic Fertilizers, Inc., 151 Cal.App.2d 741 [ 312 P.2d 345 ] ; American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 69 | 1 | 2 |
Kessinger v. Organic Fertilizers, Inc.green2 sentences1959It is well settled that, if the parties intend a reduction of their proposed agreement to writing before it can be considered complete, there is no contract until the formal agreement is signed (Store Properties, Inc. v. Neal, 72 Cal.App.2d 112 [ 164 P.2d 38 ]; Spinney v. Downing, 108 Cal. 666 [ 41 P. 797 ]; Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co., 167 Cal. 397 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Linnard v. Sonnenschein, 94 Cal.App. 729 [272 P. 315]; Kessinger v. Organic Fertilizers, Inc., 151 Cal.App.2d 741 [ 312 P.2d 345 ] ; American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 69 1959It is well settled that, if the parties intend a reduction of their proposed agreement to writing before it can be considered complete, there is no contract until the formal agreement is signed (Store Properties, Inc. v. Neal, 72 Cal.App.2d 112 [ 164 P.2d 38 ]; Spinney v. Downing, 108 Cal. 666 [ 41 P. 797 ]; Las Palmas etc. Distillery v. Garrett & Co., 167 Cal. 397 [ 139 P. 1077 ]; Linnard v. Sonnenschein, 94 Cal.App. 729 [272 P. 315]; Kessinger v. Organic Fertilizers, Inc., 151 Cal.App.2d 741 [ 312 P.2d 345 ] ; American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 69 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Garlingergreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Garlinger (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1187 [“expert testimony explaining a cell phone signal received by a certain side of a cell tower must have come from that side of the tower and in the general vicinity of the tower does not describe a new 9 We reject appellant’s contention that any error violated her constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. “[T]he routine application of provisions of the state Evidence Code law does not implicate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.” (Jones, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 957 .) Appellant has failed to demonstrate this case | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2003O’Donnell. 3 This case presents an exception to the one final judgment mle: “where, as here, there is a judgment resolving all issues between a plaintiff and one defendant, then either party may appeal from an adverse judgment, even though the action remains pending between the plaintiff and other defendants.” (Estate of Gonzalez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1601-1602 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 68 ]; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 577-578 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 255 ].) 4 In their trial brief regarding the scope of the bench trial, plaintiffs asserted that if the court fo 2003O’Donnell. 3 This case presents an exception to the one final judgment mle: “where, as here, there is a judgment resolving all issues between a plaintiff and one defendant, then either party may appeal from an adverse judgment, even though the action remains pending between the plaintiff and other defendants.” (Estate of Gonzalez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1601-1602 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 68 ]; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 577-578 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 255 ].) 4 In their trial brief regarding the scope of the bench trial, plaintiffs asserted that if the court fo | 1 | 1 |
Oakland Raiders v. NATIONAL FOORBALL LEAGUEgreen2 sentences2003O’Donnell. 3 This case presents an exception to the one final judgment mle: “where, as here, there is a judgment resolving all issues between a plaintiff and one defendant, then either party may appeal from an adverse judgment, even though the action remains pending between the plaintiff and other defendants.” (Estate of Gonzalez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1601-1602 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 68 ]; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 577-578 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 255 ].) 4 In their trial brief regarding the scope of the bench trial, plaintiffs asserted that if the court fo 2003O’Donnell. 3 This case presents an exception to the one final judgment mle: “where, as here, there is a judgment resolving all issues between a plaintiff and one defendant, then either party may appeal from an adverse judgment, even though the action remains pending between the plaintiff and other defendants.” (Estate of Gonzalez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1601-1602 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 68 ]; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 572, 577-578 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 255 ].) 4 In their trial brief regarding the scope of the bench trial, plaintiffs asserted that if the court fo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2002(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 903-905 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ] [probative value “minimal at best” in light of evidence of friendships, and substantial danger of prejudice in that jury could infer defendant had a criminal disposition because gangs commit crimes]; People v. Davis (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 806, 813 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ] [“This case presents no exception to the well-settled rule that the use at trial of cumulative evidence of bias in the form of gang-affiliation evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Maestas (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1495 [ 2002(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 903-905 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ] [probative value “minimal at best” in light of evidence of friendships, and substantial danger of prejudice in that jury could infer defendant had a criminal disposition because gangs commit crimes]; People v. Davis (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 806, 813 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ] [“This case presents no exception to the well-settled rule that the use at trial of cumulative evidence of bias in the form of gang-affiliation evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion”]; People v. Maestas (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1482, 1495 [ | 1 | 1 |
Nordlinger v. Lynchgreen2 sentences1991Macy & Co. v. Contra Costa County (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 352, 363-365 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 530 ], review den.; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1274, 1277 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 684 ], review den.) Amici curiae emphasize that Amador addresses only the facial constitutionality of the taxation system, whereas this case presents a challenge to the system as applied, warranting, at a minimum, an evidentiary hearing. 1991Macy & Co. v. Contra Costa County (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 352, 363-365 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 530 ], review den.; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1274, 1277 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 684 ], review den.) Amici curiae emphasize that Amador addresses only the facial constitutionality of the taxation system, whereas this case presents a challenge to the system as applied, warranting, at a minimum, an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
R. H. MacY & Co. v. Contra Costa Countygreen2 sentences1991Macy & Co. v. Contra Costa County (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 352, 363-365 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 530 ], review den.; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1274, 1277 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 684 ], review den.) Amici curiae emphasize that Amador addresses only the facial constitutionality of the taxation system, whereas this case presents a challenge to the system as applied, warranting, at a minimum, an evidentiary hearing. 1991Macy & Co. v. Contra Costa County (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 352, 363-365 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 530 ], review den.; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1274, 1277 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 684 ], review den.) Amici curiae emphasize that Amador addresses only the facial constitutionality of the taxation system, whereas this case presents a challenge to the system as applied, warranting, at a minimum, an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Seiterlegreen2 sentences1970(People v. Seiterle (1963) 59 Cal.2d 703, 710 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 67 , 381 P.2d 947 ].) This case presents no exception. 1970(People v. Seiterle (1963) 59 Cal.2d 703, 710 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 67 , 381 P.2d 947 ].) This case presents no exception. | 1 | 1 |
| Emeric v. Alvaradogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Torrencegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Little v. Union Oil Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Emirzian v. Asatogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Isenberg v. Shermangreen | 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. Scott
green
2 sentences2017The Attorney General acknowledged that generally only the oral pronouncement constitutes the judgment, and any divergence in the minute order (or other forms) is presumed to be clerical error. ( People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303 , 1324, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 236 .) This case presents an exception to this general rule because the crime-lab fee and drug program fee were each mandatory. 2017The Attorney General acknowledged that generally only the oral pronouncement constitutes the judgment, and any divergence in the minute order (or other forms) is presumed to be clerical error. ( People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303 , 1324, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 236 .) This case presents an exception to this general rule because the crime-lab fee and drug program fee were each mandatory. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
green
2 sentences2017(See Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1342 , 1376, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 293 .) This case presents no exception to the general rule. 2017(See Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1342 , 1376, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 293 .) This case presents no exception to the general rule. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Prince
green
2 sentences2017Defendant’s “attempt to inflate garden-variety evidentiary questions into constitutional ones is unpersuasive.” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 427 .) “‘[A]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe on a capital defendant’s constitutional rights’” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1229 ), and this case presents no exception. 2017Defendant‟s “attempt to inflate garden-variety evidentiary questions into constitutional ones is unpersuasive.” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 427 .) “„[A]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe on a capital defendant‟s constitutional rights‟” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1229 ), and this case presents no exception. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Boyette
green
2 sentences2017Defendant’s “attempt to inflate garden-variety evidentiary questions into constitutional ones is unpersuasive.” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 427 .) “‘[A]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe on a capital defendant’s constitutional rights’” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1229 ), and this case presents no exception. 2017Defendant‟s “attempt to inflate garden-variety evidentiary questions into constitutional ones is unpersuasive.” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 427 .) “„[A]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe on a capital defendant‟s constitutional rights‟” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1229 ), and this case presents no exception. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Friedman v. Friedman
green
1 sentence2026The Balancing of Harms On appeal, Sarkis argues plaintiffs have not “demonstrate[d] they would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction.” The trial court found that this was plaintiffs’ “weakest prong” but determined that plaintiffs’ “continued business viability is at least in substantial question.” Sarkis cites to Friedman v. Friedman (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 876 , wherein the court stated, “[c]ase law has made it clear that mere monetary loss does not constitute irreparable harm in the context of proposed injunctive relief unless there is some showing that one against whom inj | 1 | 2026–2026 |
The People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2022(See People v. Garlinger (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1187 [“expert testimony explaining a cell phone signal received by a certain side of a cell tower must have come from that side of the tower and in the general vicinity of the tower does not describe a new 9 We reject appellant’s contention that any error violated her constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. “[T]he routine application of provisions of the state Evidence Code law does not implicate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.” (Jones, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 957 .) Appellant has failed to demonstrate this case | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Flores
green
1 sentence2022(See, e.g., People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1063 .) This case presents a challenge in dealing with the tension between what is arguably the plain meaning of the relevant statutes, as modified, and the legislative history and precedent. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Medina
green
1 sentence2021“Prejudice cannot be presumed on a silent record.” (People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 904 .) As the instant case presents no exception to this well-established rule, we find no prejudice assuming error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kaplan's Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2016Local court decisions enjoining obstructions to access thus "do not threaten significant interference with labor board adjudications." ( Id. at p. 75, 160 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 603 P.2d 1341 ; see also Bertuccio v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 363 , 369-371, 173 Cal.Rptr. 411 .) As in Sears and Kaplan's, this case presents a state claim challenging union conduct the NLRA arguably prohibits, since engaging in indoor demonstrations could under some circumstances constitute an unfair labor practice. 2016Local court decisions enjoining obstructions to access thus "do not threaten significant interference with labor board adjudications." ( Id. at p. 75, 160 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 603 P.2d 1341 ; see also Bertuccio v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 363 , 369-371, 173 Cal.Rptr. 411 .) As in Sears and Kaplan's, this case presents a state claim challenging union conduct the NLRA arguably prohibits, since engaging in indoor demonstrations could under some circumstances constitute an unfair labor practice. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lindberg
green
1 sentence2016Our Supreme Court has “long observed that ‘[a]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly infringe on a . . . defendant’s constitutional rights.’ 26 [Citation.]” (People v. Lindberg, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 26 .) Chong and Gary do not persuade us this case presents an exception to this general rule. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
John Panzavecchia v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation
green
1 sentence2016Nor are we persuaded by their reliance on Bean v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1998) 163 F.3d 1073 (Bean) and Panzavecchia v. Wainwright (5th Cir. 1981) 658 F.2d 337 (Panzavecchia). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bean v. Calderon
green
1 sentence2016Nor are we persuaded by their reliance on Bean v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1998) 163 F.3d 1073 (Bean) and Panzavecchia v. Wainwright (5th Cir. 1981) 658 F.2d 337 (Panzavecchia). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Huggins
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 205 .) Citing People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 , defendant argues this case presents an exception to the rule of forfeiture, because there was no admonition that could have cured the harm. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Hill
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 205 .) Citing People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 , defendant argues this case presents an exception to the rule of forfeiture, because there was no admonition that could have cured the harm. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brownell v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty.
green
2 sentences1989Thus, for example, in Brownell v. Superior Court (1910) 157 Cal. 703 [ 109 P. 91 ], a statute required that an order of partial distribution of an estate had to state a bond had been filed. 1989Thus, for example, in Brownell v. Superior Court (1910) 157 Cal. 703 [ 109 P. 91 ], a statute required that an order of partial distribution of an estate had to state a bond had been filed. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Baxter v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1977We face that issue today: the present case presents a claim by nine children for the loss of the services, companionship, affection and guidance of their mother; the companion case of Baxter v. Superior Court, post, page 461 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 563 P.2d 871 ] presents the claim of a mother and father for the loss of the companionship and affection of their 16-year-old son. 1977We face that issue today: the present case presents a claim by nine children for the loss of the services, companionship, affection and guidance of their mother; the companion case of Baxter v. Superior Court, post, page 461 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 315 , 563 P.2d 871 ] presents the claim of a mother and father for the loss of the companionship and affection of their 16-year-old son. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co. green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Store Properties, Inc. v. Neal green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Tewksbury v. O'Connell neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Fuller v. Reed neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Northam v. Gordon green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Barber v. Burrows green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| People v. Zolotoff green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| People v. Flohr green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Haight v. White neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Lindemann v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co. green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Ambler v. Whipple green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.