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.
15 California opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Richard S.green2 sentences2021As our Supreme Court explained in a similar context in In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , a rule “may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty.” (Id. at p. 865.) That is particularly true of rules “ ‘designed to serve some collateral, administrative purpose,’ ” as distinct from rules “ ‘intended to provide protection or benefit to . . . individuals.’ ” (People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901, 909 .) In this case, we find that Keith and Kraig, in focusing on the court’s alleged failure 2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C | 4 | 12 |
People v. McGeegreen2 sentences2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which 2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which | 2 | 3 |
Sheyko v. Saenzgreen2 sentences2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C 2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C | 2 | 2 |
Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp.green2 sentences2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C 2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C | 2 | 2 |
Children's Protective Services v. Charles B.green2 sentences1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In 1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In | 2 | 2 |
MIitchell v. City of Indiogreen2 sentences1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In 1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In | 2 | 2 |
Pulcifer v. County of Alamedagreen2 sentences1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In 1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In | 2 | 2 |
Morris v. County of Maringreen2 sentences2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which 2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which | 1 | 3 |
Judith P. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011(Judith P. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 535, 552-553 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 14 ].) Under the foregoing standards, we hold that the CPS referral was mandatory. 2011(Judith P. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 535, 552-553 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 14 ].) Under the foregoing standards, we hold that the CPS referral was mandatory. | 1 | 1 |
Chrysler Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle Boardgreen2 sentences2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which 2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which | 1 | 1 |
Bayside Auto & Truck Sales, Inc. v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which 2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which | 1 | 1 |
Int'l Medication Sys., Inc. v. Assessment App. Bd. of Los Angeles Countygreen2 sentences2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which 2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which | 1 | 1 |
California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n. v. State Personnel Boardgreen2 sentences2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which 2011“A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty ‘mandatory’ or ‘directory.’ ‘[T]he “directory” or “mandatory” designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is “permissive” or “obligatory,” but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences2008(People v. Allen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 91, 101, fn. 5 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 124 , 164 P.3d 557 ] (Allen).) Rather, if a particular procedural requirement is deemed “mandatory,” then noncompliance with the procedural requirement invalidates the governmental action taken in violation of the procedural requirement. 2008(People v. Allen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 91, 101, fn. 5 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 124 , 164 P.3d 557 ] (Allen).) Rather, if a particular procedural requirement is deemed “mandatory,” then noncompliance with the procedural requirement invalidates the governmental action taken in violation of the procedural requirement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tulare County Health & Human Services Agency v. Travis H.
green
2 sentences2026(Ibid.) As noted on the order granting appellant a fee waiver here, if she had requested a court reporter, one would be provided at no cost to her.6 As this court has previously noted, a statute or rule “ ‘may impose on the [government] a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty.’ ” (In re Hannah D. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 662, 680 .) The distinction is based on whether the duty is “ ‘ “mandatory” ’ ” or “ ‘ “directory.” ’ ” (Ibid.) This distinction is not synonymous with “ ‘ “ ‘ “permissive” ’ ” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “ 2026(Ibid.) As noted on the order granting appellant a fee waiver here, if she had requested a court reporter, one would be provided at no cost to her.4 As this court has previously noted, a statute or rule “ ‘may impose on the [government] a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty.’ ” (In re Hannah D. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 662, 680 .) The distinction is based on whether the duty is “ ‘ “mandatory” ’ ” or “ ‘ “directory.” ’ ” (Ibid.) This distinction is not synonymous with “ ‘ “ ‘ “permissive” ’ ” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “ | 2 | 2026–2026 |
City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C 2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Lara
green
2 sentences2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C 2018"A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. [Citations.] This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty 'mandatory' or 'directory.' '[T]he "directory" or "mandatory" designation ... simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.' [Citation.]" ( In re Richard S . (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , 865, 2 C | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Lamonica H.
green
2 sentences1991(Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of Indio (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 881, 888-889 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 235 ]; In re Charles B. (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1209 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 1 ].) This distinction is generally expressed in terms of calling the duty “mandatory” or “directory.” “[T]he ‘directory’ or ‘mandatory’ designation does not refer to whether a particular statutory requirement is ‘permissive’ or ‘obligatory,’ but instead simply denotes whether the failure to comply with a particular 1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In | 2 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Gray
green
1 sentence2021As our Supreme Court explained in a similar context in In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857 , a rule “may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty.” (Id. at p. 865.) That is particularly true of rules “ ‘designed to serve some collateral, administrative purpose,’ ” as distinct from rules “ ‘intended to provide protection or benefit to . . . individuals.’ ” (People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901, 909 .) In this case, we find that Keith and Kraig, in focusing on the court’s alleged failure | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Joey G.
green
2 sentences2018The juvenile charging process . "[T]he juvenile court may take jurisdiction over a minor as a ' "ward of the court" when the child is habitually disobedient or truant' under section 601 or commits a crime under section 602. [Citation.]" ( In re Joey G . (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 343 , 347, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 698 .) "Whenever any person applies to the probation officer to commence proceedings in the juvenile court, the application shall be in the form of an affidavit alleging that there was or is within the county, or residing therein, a minor within the provisions of Section 602, or that a minor com 2018The juvenile charging process . "[T]he juvenile court may take jurisdiction over a minor as a ' "ward of the court" when the child is habitually disobedient or truant' under section 601 or commits a crime under section 602. [Citation.]" ( In re Joey G . (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 343 , 347, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 698 .) "Whenever any person applies to the probation officer to commence proceedings in the juvenile court, the application shall be in the form of an affidavit alleging that there was or is within the county, or residing therein, a minor within the provisions of Section 602, or that a minor com | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. E.G.
green
1 sentence2018(See also In re E.G. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 871 , 876–877 [statute’s use of language normally limited to adult criminal proceedings is not dispositive of whether statute applies to juveniles].) 6 have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates.’ [Citation.]” (In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857, 865 .) “Courts determine whether an obligatory statutory provision should be given mandatory or directory effect by ascertaining the legislative intent. [Citation.]” (City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 924 .) “‘There is no “‘simpl | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Damian
neutral
1 sentence1991It is this analysis that we find dispositive. (1c) We conclude that the court in In re Damian V., supra, 197 Cal. App.3d 933 , erred in assuming that because rule 244 uses the term "shall," failure to follow the rule precisely deprives the court of jurisdiction. (4a) A statutory requirement may impose on the state a duty to act in a particular way, and yet failure to do so may not void the governmental action taken in violation of the duty. ( Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 ; Pulcifer v. County of Alameda (1946) 29 Cal.2d 258, 262-263 [ 175 P.2d 1 ]; Mitchell v. City of In | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.