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.
20 California opinions name it 3 courts 1955–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabrielgreen1 sentence2025City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 882, 887 [merely “asserting in conclusory fashion that [appellant] was prejudiced” is insufficient].) We need not reach the merits of appellants’ arguments given their failure to offer a cogent analysis on the subject of prejudice. “[O]ur duty to examine the entire cause arises when and only when the appellant has fulfilled his duty to tender a proper prejudice argument. | 1 | 1 |
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Browngreen2 sentences1999Fund v. Brown (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 188, 199 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 98 ]). 1999Fund v. Brown (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 188, 199 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 98 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Pranger v. Breakgreen2 sentences1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t 1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t | 1 | 1 |
Newmarker v. Regents of University of Californiagreen2 sentences1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t 1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t | 1 | 1 |
City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Councilgreen2 sentences1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t 1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t | 1 | 1 |
City of San Diego v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 127green2 sentences1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t 1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t | 1 | 1 |
Trustees of California State Colleges v. Local 1352, San Francisco State College Federation of Teachersgreen2 sentences1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t 1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t | 1 | 1 |
Almond v. County of Sacramentogreen2 sentences1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t 1985State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 134 ], hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 ], hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 518 ], hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 ], hg. den.; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 [ 325 P.2d 558 ]; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46-47 [ 210 P.2d 305 ], hg. den.) Justice Coughlin’s opinion in t | 1 | 1 |
Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co.green2 sentences1974(Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 869 [ 118 P.2d 465 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 500.) In a cogent analysis of the policy considerations underlying the admission of evidence of post-occurrence changes in a products liability context, the author states, “The assumption that the admission of evidence of subsequent repairs discourages defendants from making required repairs may be erroneous. 1974(Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 869 [ 118 P.2d 465 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 500.) In a cogent analysis of the policy considerations underlying the admission of evidence of post-occurrence changes in a products liability context, the author states, “The assumption that the admission of evidence of subsequent repairs discourages defendants from making required repairs may be erroneous. | 1 | 1 |
Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.green2 sentences1974Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 135 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 433 , 501 P.2d 1153 ].) [3] Another argument of defendant is that unless "culpable conduct" is interpreted to include strict liability, the phrase has no meaning in section 1151 because it would then be synonymous with "negligence." However, there are types of faulty conduct other than negligence which are encompassed within "culpable conduct," such as wanton and reckless misconduct. ( Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 869 [ 118 P.2d 465 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 500.) [4] In a cogent analysis of the policy considerations und 1974Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 135 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 433 , 501 P.2d 1153 ].) [3] Another argument of defendant is that unless "culpable conduct" is interpreted to include strict liability, the phrase has no meaning in section 1151 because it would then be synonymous with "negligence." However, there are types of faulty conduct other than negligence which are encompassed within "culpable conduct," such as wanton and reckless misconduct. ( Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 869 [ 118 P.2d 465 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 500.) [4] In a cogent analysis of the policy considerations und | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Laceygreen2 sentences1955(Thompson v. Lacey, 42 Cal.2d 443, 447 [ 267 P.2d 1 ].) In the Goldanski case, supra, the court, in a cogent analysis of the trend of recent decisions, points out that “even though the purpose of a trip is pleasure or social, the rider may be a passenger if the driver actually receives for the trip something intended as compensation.” (P. 47.) However, it was there held, upon abundant authority, that where the ride is offered for mutual pleasure or as an act of hospitality, such mere exchange of social courtesies is not a benefit amounting to compensation so as to make a rider a passenger and 1955(Thompson v. Lacey, 42 Cal.2d 443, 447 [ 267 P.2d 1 ].) In the Goldanski case, supra, the court, in a cogent analysis of the trend of recent decisions, points out that “even though the purpose of a trip is pleasure or social, the rider may be a passenger if the driver actually receives for the trip something intended as compensation.” (P. 47.) However, it was there held, upon abundant authority, that where the ride is offered for mutual pleasure or as an act of hospitality, such mere exchange of social courtesies is not a benefit amounting to compensation so as to make a rider a passenger and | 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. Superior Court (Pearson)
green
2 sentences2019The T.D. majority at least recognizes Pearson, supra, 48 Cal.4th 564 but does not ask nor answer the straightforward determinative question. 2019The court held “that [SB 1391] is unconstitutional insofar as it precludes the possibility of adult prosecution of an alleged 15-year-old murderer.” (Id. at p. 628.) The O.G. court said, “[w]e disagree with the four Court of Appeal opinions because, frankly, they did not ask nor answer the determinative question so aptly framed by Justice Chin for a unanimous Supreme Court in [People v. Superior Court (Pearson) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 564 (Pearson)].” (Id. at p. 629.)5 The court “agree[d] with the cogent analysis of the dissent [in S.L.].” (Ibid.) 5 Pearson considered whether legislation (coincident | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Prieto v. LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY
green
2 sentences2008(See, e.g., Prieto v. Loyola Marymount University, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 , 33 Cal. Rptr.3d 639 ; Vandermoon v. Sanwong, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 321 , 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 772 .) [3] We agree with the cogent analysis in English , which is faithful to legislative intent and consistent with established principles of statutory construction. 2008(See, e.g., Prieto v. Loyola Marymount University, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 , 33 Cal. Rptr.3d 639 ; Vandermoon v. Sanwong, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 321 , 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 772 .) [3] We agree with the cogent analysis in English , which is faithful to legislative intent and consistent with established principles of statutory construction. | 3 | 2007–2010 |
People ex rel. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Anapol
green
2 sentences2021Rubin has failed to provide evidence establishing the written medical reports or billing statements for its lien patients were made “in anticipation of litigation contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration.” (Anapol, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 827 .) Rubin’s preparation of medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims against Allstate were apparently his routine and usual course of business, which may or may not have resulted in litigation (as were the insurance claims in Anapol, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 827 ). 2021Rubin has failed to provide evidence establishing the written medical reports or billing statements for its lien patients were made “in anticipation of litigation contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration.” (Anapol, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 827 .) Rubin’s preparation of medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims against Allstate were apparently his routine and usual course of business, which may or may not have resulted in litigation (as were the insurance claims in Anapol, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 827 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Asfaw v. Woldberhan
green
2 sentences2018The overriding policy of the statutory formula is to place the interests of children ‘as the state’s top priority.’ (§ 4053, subd. (e).) Thus, a parent’s principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to his or her circumstances and ability to pay in order to improve the lives of the children. [Citations.] Simply put, these policies are at odds with a child’s receiving less financial support from a party who is permitted under tax laws and accounting principles to take a deduction that does not reduce funds available for support. ( Asfaw, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1 2018The overriding policy of the statutory formula is to place the interests of children 'as the state's top priority.' (§ 4053, subd. (e).) Thus, a parent's principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to his or her circumstances and ability to pay in order to improve the lives of the children. [Citations.] Simply put, these policies are at odds with a child's receiving less financial support from a party who is permitted under tax laws and accounting principles to take a deduction that does not reduce funds available for support. ( Asfaw , supra , 147 Cal.App.4th at pp. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Vandermoon v. Sanwong
green
2 sentences2008(See, e.g., Prieto v. Loyola Marymount University, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 , 33 Cal. Rptr.3d 639 ; Vandermoon v. Sanwong, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 321 , 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 772 .) [3] We agree with the cogent analysis in English , which is faithful to legislative intent and consistent with established principles of statutory construction. 2008(See, e.g., Prieto v. Loyola Marymount University, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 , 33 Cal. Rptr.3d 639 ; Vandermoon v. Sanwong, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 321 , 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 772 .) [3] We agree with the cogent analysis in English , which is faithful to legislative intent and consistent with established principles of statutory construction. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC
green
2 sentences2026Because Vanderford does not provide a cogent analysis warranting application of either doctrine, we must affirm the denial of his writ petition based on timeliness.6 (Champir, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 597; United Grand, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146 .) IV DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2026(Champir, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 597; United Grand, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146 .) Vanderford also does not present a cogent analysis of why Respondents should be estopped from asserting a timeliness defense, or why section 410’s six-month deadline should be tolled. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Paterno v. State
green
1 sentence2025Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice.” (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 .) This alone compels us to affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Eastern. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Huh v. Wang
green
1 sentence2017McAdams, in Huh, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at page 1417: “We agree with the cogent analysis in English , which is faithful to legislative intent and consistent with established principles of statutory construction. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Dillon
red
1 sentence2013Lastly, he contends “a more cogent analysis in lewd act cases is comparing the sentence a resident child molester would have received for the same or similar conduct.” This nature of the offense and the offender inquiry “focuses on the particular person before the court, and asks whether the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the defendant’s individual culpability as shown by such factors as his age, prior criminality, personal characteristics, and state of mind.” (People v. Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 479 .) The offenses committed by defendant demand a long period of confinement to | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Biltoft v. Wootten
green
2 sentences1992Because Logan contains a cogent analysis of the issue and relevant case law, we quote extensively from that decision: “The first case to consider a closely related issue was Biltoft v. Wootten (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 58 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 581 ] [] which involved a contributory group term life insurance policy available through the insured’s employment and paid with biweekly deductions from his pay. 1992Because Logan contains a cogent analysis of the issue and relevant case law, we quote extensively from that decision: “The first case to consider a closely related issue was Biltoft v. Wootten (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 58 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 581 ] [] which involved a contributory group term life insurance policy available through the insured’s employment and paid with biweekly deductions from his pay. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Hetherington
green
2 sentences1984(People v. Hetherington (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1132 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 756 ].) We agree with the cogent analysis in Hetherington and reach the same conclusion. 13 When section 667.5, subdivision (c)(6) *10 defines a “violent felony” as a lewd act on a child under 14 as defined in section 288, it includes all of that section, including subdivision (a). 14 Granted, the Legislature did distinguish between “violent” and “nonviolent” section 288 offenses when it added subdivision (b) in 1979. 1984(People v. Hetherington (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1132 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 756 ].) We agree with the cogent analysis in Hetherington and reach the same conclusion. 13 When section 667.5, subdivision (c)(6) *10 defines a “violent felony” as a lewd act on a child under 14 as defined in section 288, it includes all of that section, including subdivision (a). 14 Granted, the Legislature did distinguish between “violent” and “nonviolent” section 288 offenses when it added subdivision (b) in 1979. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.