18 California opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 7 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 v. Langgreen2 sentences2026(People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1024 [a party forfeits a claim “that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying” language].) This failure precludes Henriquez from raising this claim now. 2020(See People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1024 [a party forfeits a claim “that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying” language].) B. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Gladys L.green2 sentences2017A party forfeits a claim of error on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court; however, "application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic." ( In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1 , 14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) When a party raises an important constitutional argument like the one father raises here regarding his due process interest in the care and custody of his son, we exercise our discretion to consider the argument on its merits. ( Id . at pp. 13-14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [refusing to apply forfeiture doctrine to the father's claim his due process rights were violated 2017A party forfeits a claim of error on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court; however, "application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic." ( In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1 , 14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) When a party raises an important constitutional argument like the one father raises here regarding his due process interest in the care and custody of his son, we exercise our discretion to consider the argument on its merits. ( Id . at pp. 13-14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [refusing to apply forfeiture doctrine to the father's claim his due process rights were violated | 2 | 2 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Frank R.green2 sentences2017A party forfeits a claim of error on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court; however, "application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic." ( In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1 , 14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) When a party raises an important constitutional argument like the one father raises here regarding his due process interest in the care and custody of his son, we exercise our discretion to consider the argument on its merits. ( Id . at pp. 13-14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [refusing to apply forfeiture doctrine to the father's claim his due process rights were violated 2017A party forfeits a claim of error on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court; however, "application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic." ( In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1 , 14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) When a party raises an important constitutional argument like the one father raises here regarding his due process interest in the care and custody of his son, we exercise our discretion to consider the argument on its merits. ( Id . at pp. 13-14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [refusing to apply forfeiture doctrine to the father's claim his due process rights were violated | 2 | 2 |
People v. Scottgreen2 sentences2026(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351 (Scott).) Fourth, he asserts the court improperly made dual use of a prior felony DUI conviction as both an enhancement and an aggravating factor. 2025(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 351.) Here, Palacios was sentenced after section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) came into effect, and at no point before or during sentencing did counsel argue that the lower term should be imposed. | 1 | 2 |
United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLCgreen2 sentences2026(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 [A party forfeits a claim on appeal if the party fails to support 16 and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 773 [where the defendants objected to evidence on hearsay grounds, appellate challenges based on Evid. 2023Price Has Forfeited Most of His Challenges to the Other 10 Warrants A party forfeits a claim on appeal if the party fails to support the claim “with cogent argument, legal authority or specific citations to the record on appeal.” (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 .) “We may and do ‘disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or 70 fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt.’ ” (Ibid.) “In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing co | 1 | 2 |
Alameda County Social Services Agency v. T.B.green2 sentences2017A party forfeits a claim of error on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court; however, "application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic." ( In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1 , 14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) When a party raises an important constitutional argument like the one father raises here regarding his due process interest in the care and custody of his son, we exercise our discretion to consider the argument on its merits. ( Id . at pp. 13-14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [refusing to apply forfeiture doctrine to the father's claim his due process rights were violated 2017A party forfeits a claim of error on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court; however, "application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic." ( In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1 , 14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) When a party raises an important constitutional argument like the one father raises here regarding his due process interest in the care and custody of his son, we exercise our discretion to consider the argument on its merits. ( Id . at pp. 13-14, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [refusing to apply forfeiture doctrine to the father's claim his due process rights were violated | 1 | 2 |
People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborngreen1 sentence2026(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 [A party forfeits a claim on appeal if the party fails to support 16 and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 773 [where the defendants objected to evidence on hearsay grounds, appellate challenges based on Evid. | 1 | 1 |
Natkin v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2022Appeals Bd. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 997, 1011 (Natkin).) A party forfeits a claim or defense raised for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Moulton Niguel Water District v. Colombogreen1 sentence2020(People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1237 ; see Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1218 [appellate claim of judicial bias forfeited because party did not object to judge’s “alleged improprieties” or seek correction below].) Here, Anderson forfeited her claim of judicial bias by failing to raise it below. | 1 | 1 |
Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation Districtgreen1 sentence2013(Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 .) Appellant did not object to either the jury instructions or the verdict form on the ground that respondents‟ good faith competition defense applied only to conduct occurring after the original complaint was filed. | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Future Nissangreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., Cummings v. Future Nissan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 321, 329 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 10 ] [“[A] party who knowingly participates in the arbitration process without disclosing a ground for declaring it invalid is properly cast into the outer darkness of forfeiture.”].) A party who participates under protest does not forfeit this claim. 2011(See, e.g., Cummings v. Future Nissan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 321, 329 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 10 ] [“[A] party who knowingly participates in the arbitration process without disclosing a ground for declaring it invalid is properly cast into the outer darkness of forfeiture.”].) A party who participates under protest does not forfeit this claim. | 1 | 1 |
Kurinij v. Hanna & Mortongreen2 sentences2006(Kurinij v. Hanna & Morton (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 853, 865 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ].) CertainTeed argues that the rule on appeal requiring claims of error to be supported by reasoned argument and legal citations extends to the trial court, and that a party forfeits a claim presented to the trial court unless the claim is supported by argumentation and citations to authority. 2006(Kurinij v. Hanna & Morton (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 853, 865 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ].) CertainTeed argues that the rule on appeal requiring claims of error to be supported by reasoned argument and legal citations extends to the trial court, and that a party forfeits a claim presented to the trial court unless the claim is supported by argumentation and citations to authority. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kevin R. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2021(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 .) Father’s counsel was present at the hearing when the juvenile court ordered visitation between father and the minor consistent with the minor’s well-being, leaving the time, place, and manner of visitation to be arranged by the Department. 2020(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222 ; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961-962.) We will, nonetheless, excuse the forfeiture and accept the Departm | 3 | 2013–2021 |
In Re SB
red
2 sentences2020(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222 ; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961-962.) We will, nonetheless, excuse the forfeiture and accept the Departm 2020(In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293.) Alejandro N. admits his lawyer did not raise this issue in the trial court. | 3 | 2013–2020 |
In Re SJ
green
2 sentences2020(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222 ; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961-962.) We will, nonetheless, excuse the forfeiture and accept the Departm 2013(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212 , 221–222; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “[A]pplication of the forfeiture rule is not automatic. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293; superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961.) “But the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal 8 issue. [Citations.] Although an appellate court’s discretion to consider forfe | 2 | 2013–2020 |
In Re Anthony P.
green
2 sentences2020(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222 ; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961-962.) We will, nonetheless, excuse the forfeiture and accept the Departm 2013(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212 , 221–222; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “[A]pplication of the forfeiture rule is not automatic. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293; superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961.) “But the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal 8 issue. [Citations.] Although an appellate court’s discretion to consider forfe | 2 | 2013–2020 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Christina N.
green
2 sentences2020(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222 ; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961-962.) We will, nonetheless, excuse the forfeiture and accept the Departm 2013(Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 ; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212 , 221–222; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642 .) “[A]pplication of the forfeiture rule is not automatic. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293; superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 961.) “But the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal 8 issue. [Citations.] Although an appellate court’s discretion to consider forfe | 2 | 2013–2020 |
People v. Roberts
green
1 sentence2026Code, §§ 1101 & 352 are both forfeited]; People v. Roberts (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1193 .) However, anticipating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we will exercise our discretion to review the merits of Sardi’s claim. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Moore
green
1 sentence2026Moreover, we acknowledge courts must provide information on any point of law arising in the case during jury deliberations. (§ 1138; People v. Hodges (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 531, 539 .) The original instructions here were “ ‘themselves full and complete,’ ” thus the trial court had “ ‘discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury’s request for information.’ ” (Hodges, at p. 539; People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323 , 1330–1331 [abuse of discretion standard of review for errors under § 1138].) The court did not “figuratively thro | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Hodges
green
1 sentence2026Moreover, we acknowledge courts must provide information on any point of law arising in the case during jury deliberations. (§ 1138; People v. Hodges (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 531, 539 .) The original instructions here were “ ‘themselves full and complete,’ ” thus the trial court had “ ‘discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury’s request for information.’ ” (Hodges, at p. 539; People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323 , 1330–1331 [abuse of discretion standard of review for errors under § 1138].) The court did not “figuratively thro | 1 | 2026–2026 |
City of Santa Maria v. Adam
green
1 sentence2023Price Has Forfeited Most of His Challenges to the Other 10 Warrants A party forfeits a claim on appeal if the party fails to support the claim “with cogent argument, legal authority or specific citations to the record on appeal.” (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 .) “We may and do ‘disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or 70 fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt.’ ” (Ibid.) “In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing co | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Quiles v. Parent
green
1 sentence2022(Quiles v. Parent (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1013 ; see Cabatit v. Sunnova Energy Corporation (2020) 60 Cal.App.5th 317 , 322 [“If a party fails to raise an issue or theory in the trial court, we may deem consideration of that issue or theory forfeited on appeal.”].) “‘Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider. [Citation.] In our adversarial system, each party has the obligation to raise any issue or infirmity that might subject the ensuing judgment to att | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Sturm
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1237 ; see Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1218 [appellate claim of judicial bias forfeited because party did not object to judge’s “alleged improprieties” or seek correction below].) Here, Anderson forfeited her claim of judicial bias by failing to raise it below. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Snow
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 447 ; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 77-78 .) One exception to this general rule is where objecting would be futile. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Pearson
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 447 ; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 77-78 .) One exception to this general rule is where objecting would be futile. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.