time prescribed rule in California

18 California opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2025 5 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hollister Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. Ricogreen cal · 1975 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996(Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 674 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 757 , 542 P.2d 1349 ].) However, “we are directed by . . . rule 1(a) to liberally construe the notice of appeal in favor of its sufficiency. 1996(Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 674 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 757 , 542 P.2d 1349 ].) However, “we are directed by . . . rule 1(a) to liberally construe the notice of appeal in favor of its sufficiency.	2	2
Bernstein v. State Bargreen cal · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973(Bernstein v. State Bar, 6 Cal.3d 909, 916 (2) [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 495 P.2d 1289 ]; Eschwig v. State Bar, supra, 1 Cal.3d 8, 18 (11).) In addition, although it is clear that there was a delay in the proceeding far in excess of the time prescribed by rule 21(a) of the Rules of Procedure of. the State Bar ([Deering’s Cal. Codes, Rules Ann., Rules of Proc. of the State Bar, p. 371]; West’s Bus. & Prof. 1973(Bernstein v. State Bar, 6 Cal.3d 909, 916 (2) [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 495 P.2d 1289 ]; Eschwig v. State Bar, supra, 1 Cal.3d 8, 18 (11).) In addition, although it is clear that there was a delay in the proceeding far in excess of the time prescribed by rule 21(a) of the Rules of Procedure of. the State Bar ([Deering’s Cal. Codes, Rules Ann., Rules of Proc. of the State Bar, p. 371]; West’s Bus. & Prof.	1	1
Eschwig v. State Bargreen cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 1 sentence 1973(Bernstein v. State Bar, 6 Cal.3d 909, 916 (2) [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 495 P.2d 1289 ]; Eschwig v. State Bar, supra, 1 Cal.3d 8, 18 (11).) In addition, although it is clear that there was a delay in the proceeding far in excess of the time prescribed by rule 21(a) of the Rules of Procedure of. the State Bar ([Deering’s Cal. Codes, Rules Ann., Rules of Proc. of the State Bar, p. 371]; West’s Bus. & Prof.	1	1
Estate of Campbellgreen calctapp · 1938 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970 2 sentences 1970(Estate of Campbell, 28 Cal.App.2d 102, 104 [ 82 P.2d 22 ]; Haggerty v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.2d 407, 418 [ 326 P.2d 957 ].) Accordingly, all interests must vest within the time prescribed by the rule. 1970(Estate of Campbell, 28 Cal.App.2d 102, 104 [ 82 P.2d 22 ]; Haggerty v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.2d 407, 418 [ 326 P.2d 957 ].) Accordingly, all interests must vest within the time prescribed by the rule.	1	1
Lowenthal v. Kunzgreen calctapp · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970 2 sentences 1970(Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Duffill, 191 Cal. 629, 647-649 [ 218 P. 14 ]; Lowenthal v. Kunz, 104 Cal.App.2d 181, 183-184 [ 231 P.2d 62 ].) Directing our attention to the Declaration, in the light of these principles, we note that it does not provide for any intervening life estates or other prior interests preventing either the legal or the beneficial interests from vesting within the time prescribed by the rule, but the respective ínter 1098 ests became immediately effective upon the instrument’s inception. 1970(Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Duffill, 191 Cal. 629, 647-649 [ 218 P. 14 ]; Lowenthal v. Kunz, 104 Cal.App.2d 181, 183-184 [ 231 P.2d 62 ].) Directing our attention to the Declaration, in the light of these principles, we note that it does not provide for any intervening life estates or other prior interests preventing either the legal or the beneficial interests from vesting within the time prescribed by the rule, but the respective ínter 1098 ests became immediately effective upon the instrument’s inception.	1	1
Haggerty v. City of Oaklandgreen calctapp · 1958 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970 2 sentences 1970(Estate of Campbell, 28 Cal.App.2d 102, 104 [ 82 P.2d 22 ]; Haggerty v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.2d 407, 418 [ 326 P.2d 957 ].) Accordingly, all interests must vest within the time prescribed by the rule. 1970(Estate of Campbell, 28 Cal.App.2d 102, 104 [ 82 P.2d 22 ]; Haggerty v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.2d 407, 418 [ 326 P.2d 957 ].) Accordingly, all interests must vest within the time prescribed by the rule.	1	1
Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Duffillgreen cal · 1923 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970 2 sentences 1970(Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Duffill, 191 Cal. 629, 647-649 [ 218 P. 14 ]; Lowenthal v. Kunz, 104 Cal.App.2d 181, 183-184 [ 231 P.2d 62 ].) Directing our attention to the Declaration, in the light of these principles, we note that it does not provide for any intervening life estates or other prior interests preventing either the legal or the beneficial interests from vesting within the time prescribed by the rule, but the respective ínter 1098 ests became immediately effective upon the instrument’s inception. 1970(Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Duffill, 191 Cal. 629, 647-649 [ 218 P. 14 ]; Lowenthal v. Kunz, 104 Cal.App.2d 181, 183-184 [ 231 P.2d 62 ].) Directing our attention to the Declaration, in the light of these principles, we note that it does not provide for any intervening life estates or other prior interests preventing either the legal or the beneficial interests from vesting within the time prescribed by the rule, but the respective ínter 1098 ests became immediately effective upon the instrument’s inception.	1	1
People v. Lewisgreen cal · 1933 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1938–1938 2 sentences 1938(People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 Pac. (2d) 73, 74 ] ; People v. Nichols, 114 Cal. App. 136, 137 [ 299 Pac. 752 ]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550, 552 [ 297 Pac. 105 ].) It is further held that an appellant, who fails to file the application within the time prescribed in the rule, may not obtain relief under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1938(People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 Pac. (2d) 73, 74 ] ; People v. Nichols, 114 Cal. App. 136, 137 [ 299 Pac. 752 ]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550, 552 [ 297 Pac. 105 ].) It is further held that an appellant, who fails to file the application within the time prescribed in the rule, may not obtain relief under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.	1	1
People v. Schroedergreen calctapp · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1938–1938 2 sentences 1938(People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 Pac. (2d) 73, 74 ] ; People v. Nichols, 114 Cal. App. 136, 137 [ 299 Pac. 752 ]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550, 552 [ 297 Pac. 105 ].) It is further held that an appellant, who fails to file the application within the time prescribed in the rule, may not obtain relief under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1938(People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 Pac. (2d) 73, 74 ] ; People v. Nichols, 114 Cal. App. 136, 137 [ 299 Pac. 752 ]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550, 552 [ 297 Pac. 105 ].) It is further held that an appellant, who fails to file the application within the time prescribed in the rule, may not obtain relief under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.	1	1
People v. Nicholsgreen calctapp · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1938–1938 2 sentences 1938(People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 Pac. (2d) 73, 74 ] ; People v. Nichols, 114 Cal. App. 136, 137 [ 299 Pac. 752 ]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550, 552 [ 297 Pac. 105 ].) It is further held that an appellant, who fails to file the application within the time prescribed in the rule, may not obtain relief under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1938(People v. Lewis, 219 Cal. 410, 414 [ 27 Pac. (2d) 73, 74 ] ; People v. Nichols, 114 Cal. App. 136, 137 [ 299 Pac. 752 ]; People v. Schroeder, 112 Cal. App. 550, 552 [ 297 Pac. 105 ].) It is further held that an appellant, who fails to file the application within the time prescribed in the rule, may not obtain relief under the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
English v. Ikon Business Solutions, Inc. green calctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2025(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), (C).) The time to appeal from the judgment, however, may be extended “[i]f, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment,” a party “serves and files a valid notice of intention to move—or a valid motion—to vacate the judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c); English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 135 .) Here, the trial court entered summary judgment on February 13, 2024, and the clerk mailed notice to the parties on February 15, 2024. 2025(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), (C).) The time to appeal from the judgment, however, may be extended “[i]f, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment,” a party “serves and files a valid notice of intention to move—or a valid motion—to vacate the judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c); English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 135 .) Here, the trial court entered summary judgment on February 13, 2024, and the clerk mailed notice to the parties on February 15, 2024.	2	2025–2025
Eben-King v. King green calctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2023“If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move—or a valid motion—to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: [¶] (1) 30 days after the superior court clerk or a party serves an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order; [¶] (2) 90 days after the first notice of intention to move—or motion—is filed; or [¶] (3) 180 days after entry of judgment.” (Rule 8.108(c).) “A motion to set aside a judgment under section 473 qualifie 2014Rule 8.108(c) states: "If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move -- or a valid motion -- to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: [¶] (1) 30 days after the superior court clerk or a party serves, an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order; [¶] (2) 90 days after the first notice of intention to move -- or motion -- is filed; or [¶] (3) 180 days after entry of judgment." 6 Hospital (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 1007, 1010	2	2014–2023
People v. Slobodion green cal · 1947 2 sentences 1960There it was held under similar circumstances that “. . . appellant made a constructive filing within the prescribed time limit and satisfied the jurisdictional requirement within the rule enunciated in People v. Slobodion, 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ], and later decisions interpreting and applying that rule. [Citing cases.]” Under the facts disclosed here we conclude, as did the court in the Tapia case, that since it is undisputed that appellant’s notice of appeal was delivered to the legal clerk at the facility in ample time to have been delivered to the county clerk, the appellant made a 1960There it was held under similar circumstances that “. . . appellant made a constructive filing within the prescribed time limit and satisfied the jurisdictional requirement within the rule enunciated in People v. Slobodion, 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ], and later decisions interpreting and applying that rule. [Citing cases.]” Under the facts disclosed here we conclude, as did the court in the Tapia case, that since it is undisputed that appellant’s notice of appeal was delivered to the legal clerk at the facility in ample time to have been delivered to the county clerk, the appellant made a	2	1954–1960
People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. green calctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2024(People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047 .) Because it is untimely, we dismiss the appeal as to the summary judgment only; the appeal is timely as to the order on the motion to vacate forfeiture.	1	2024–2024
County of Monterey v. Mahabir green calctapp · 1991 1 sentence 2021Weinrot & Son v. Jackson (1985) 40 Cal.3d 327, 331 , superseded by statute on other grounds, County of Monterey v. Mahabir (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1650 .) California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c) provides, “If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move – or a valid motion – to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: [¶] (1) 30 days after the superior court clerk, or a party serves an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that o	1	2021–2021
I. J. Weinrot & Son, Inc. v. Jackson green cal · 1985 1 sentence 2021Weinrot & Son v. Jackson (1985) 40 Cal.3d 327, 331 , superseded by statute on other grounds, County of Monterey v. Mahabir (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1650 .) California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c) provides, “If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move – or a valid motion – to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: [¶] (1) 30 days after the superior court clerk, or a party serves an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that o	1	2021–2021
Lamb v. Holy Cross Hospital green calctapp · 1978 1 sentence 2014Rule 8.108(c) states: "If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move -- or a valid motion -- to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: [¶] (1) 30 days after the superior court clerk or a party serves, an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order; [¶] (2) 90 days after the first notice of intention to move -- or motion -- is filed; or [¶] (3) 180 days after entry of judgment." 6 Hospital (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 1007, 1010	1	2014–2014
In Re Chavez green cal · 2003 1 sentence 2014(In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 650 .) Here, the deadline to file the notice of appeal was provided by California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c),1 which provides: “Motion to vacate judgment [¶] If, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move-- or a valid motion--to vacate the judgment, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until the earliest of: 1 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 2 (1) 30 days after the superior court clerk or a party serves	1	2014–2014
Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority green cal · 2005 1 sentence 2013Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15 , 18; cf. § 904.1, subd. (a)(4) [order granting a new trial is appealable].) Under rule 8.108(c), "[i]f, within the time prescribed by rule 8.104 to appeal from the judgment, any party served and files a valid notice of intention to move--or a valid motion--to vacate the judgment," "the time to appeal from the judgment is extended . . . 'Notice of Entry' of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; [¶] (2) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled 'Notice	1	2013–2013
People v. Ward green cal · 1967 2 sentences 1968In People v. Ward, 66 Cal.2d 571 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 426 P.2d 881 ], cited by petitioner, defendant pleaded guilty to murder and 477 appealed from the judgment of conviction, asserting errors in the subsequent proceedings to determine the degree of his crime but failing to file the certificate specified in section 1237.5, within the time prescribed by rule 31(d). 1968In People v. Ward, 66 Cal.2d 571 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 426 P.2d 881 ], cited by petitioner, defendant pleaded guilty to murder and 477 appealed from the judgment of conviction, asserting errors in the subsequent proceedings to determine the degree of his crime but failing to file the certificate specified in section 1237.5, within the time prescribed by rule 31(d).	1	1968–1968
Gonzales v. Superior Court green cal · 1935 1 sentence 1938(Gonzales v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. (2d) 260 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 320 ].) The appeal is dismissed.	1	1938–1938
Salvador v. York neutral calctapp · 1934 2 sentences 1935(Salvador v. York, 137 Cal. App. 319 [ 30 Pac. (2d) 533 ].) Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred. 1935(Salvador v. York, 137 Cal. App. 319 [ 30 Pac. (2d) 533 ].) Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.	1	1935–1935
Borgmeyer v. Solomon neutral mont · 1918 2 sentences 1922In the decision of that question the court has a very large discretion.” (See, also, Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine, 44 Cal. App. 208 [ 186 Pac. 187 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. Edmands, 45 Cal. App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ].) Under the circumstances of this case it is believed that discretion should be exercised in favor of a hearing of the appeal on its merits. 1922In the decision of that question the court has a very large discretion.” (See, also, Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine, 44 Cal. App. 208 [ 186 Pac. 187 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. Edmands, 45 Cal. App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ].) Under the circumstances of this case it is believed that discretion should be exercised in favor of a hearing of the appeal on its merits.	1	1922–1922
Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine neutral calctapp · 1919 2 sentences 1922In the decision of that question the court has a very large discretion.” (See, also, Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine, 44 Cal. App. 208 [ 186 Pac. 187 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. Edmands, 45 Cal. App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ].) Under the circumstances of this case it is believed that discretion should be exercised in favor of a hearing of the appeal on its merits. 1922In the decision of that question the court has a very large discretion.” (See, also, Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine, 44 Cal. App. 208 [ 186 Pac. 187 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. Edmands, 45 Cal. App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ].) Under the circumstances of this case it is believed that discretion should be exercised in favor of a hearing of the appeal on its merits.	1	1922–1922
Yolo Water & Power Co. v. Edmands green calctapp · 1920 2 sentences 1922In the decision of that question the court has a very large discretion.” (See, also, Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine, 44 Cal. App. 208 [ 186 Pac. 187 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. Edmands, 45 Cal. App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ].) Under the circumstances of this case it is believed that discretion should be exercised in favor of a hearing of the appeal on its merits. 1922In the decision of that question the court has a very large discretion.” (See, also, Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Friend & Terry Lumber Co. v. Devine, 44 Cal. App. 208 [ 186 Pac. 187 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. Edmands, 45 Cal. App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ].) Under the circumstances of this case it is believed that discretion should be exercised in favor of a hearing of the appeal on its merits.	1	1922–1922
Town of Mill Valley v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. green cal · 1922 2 sentences 1922Co., 189 Cal. 52 [ 207 Pac. 253 ], the supreme court said: "The primary subject of investigation upon a motion to dismiss for failure to file a transcript within the time prescribed by our rule, whatever the technical aspect of the case may be, is always the question whether the appeal has been diligently prosecuted. 1922Co., 189 Cal. 52 [ 207 Pac. 253 ], the supreme court said: "The primary subject of investigation upon a motion to dismiss for failure to file a transcript within the time prescribed by our rule, whatever the technical aspect of the case may be, is always the question whether the appeal has been diligently prosecuted.	1	1922–1922

Where else courts name it

CA 18 (1922–2025) TX 16 (1911–2025) FL 10 (1969–2026) IN 8 (1961–2020) DC 5 (1954–2005) IL 4 (1926–2014) OH 4 (1947–2019) OR 4 (1910–1953) ND 3 (1980–2007) IA 3 (2000–2007) NY 3 (1903–1935) MA 3 (1905–1965) MO 3 (1894–1981) AL 3 (1910–1959) MD 2 (1986–1997) NV 2 (1875–1916) SC 2 (1920–1920) CO 2 (1995–2022) NC 2 (1903–2014) KS 2 (1963–1979) PA 2 (1922–1989) NJ 2 (1936–1995) WA 2 (1946–1973)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check