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.
14 California opinions name it 1 courts 1906–2026 9 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. Wilshire Insurancegreen2 sentences1977Co., 53 Cal.App.3d 256, 261 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 529 ], the court considered section 1305, subdivision (b) and stated: “By its terms, the amendment [to § 1305, subd. (b)] allows the court to continue the hearing without declaring a forfeiture if it ‘has reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for his neglect to appear . . . .’ It does not require the court to make an immediate determination as to whether sufficient excuse exists. 1977Co., 53 Cal.App.3d 256, 261 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 529 ], the court considered section 1305, subdivision (b) and stated: “By its terms, the amendment [to § 1305, subd. (b)] allows the court to continue the hearing without declaring a forfeiture if it ‘has reason to believe that sufficient excuse may exist for his neglect to appear . . . .’ It does not require the court to make an immediate determination as to whether sufficient excuse exists. | 1 | 2 |
Adler v. Vaiciusgreen1 sentence2026Moreover, the statute permits the court to continue the hearing beyond the 25-day period on request of either party. (§ 245, subd. (b); see Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1770 , 1775–1776 [preliminary injunctions under Code Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Pham v. Mai-Thi Thi Nguyengreen1 sentence2025(See Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 15-18 [discussing procedure for requesting that hearing on motion be continued].) For all the reasons stated above, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the supplemental declaration. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gregersongreen1 sentence2025(People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321, 135 [“ ‘ “ ‘[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief’ ” ’ ”].) At oral argument in this court, the People urged this court to continue our analysis with an application of the factors set forth in City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118 (Alhambra). | 1 | 1 |
Tiernan v. Trustees of California State University and Collegesgreen1 sentence2023(Tiernan, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p 216, fn. 4 .)7 6 In her opposition below, Kravchuk requested that the trial court continue the hearing on respondents’ demurrer while a writ petition she had filed with this court concerning another order was pending. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015The court granted Townsend’s continuance request and granted him leave to file a new responsive separate statement based on the information discovered during the two depositions. 5 of action or there is a complete defense to the claim. [Citations.] To meet this burden, the defendant must present evidence sufficient to show he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] “‘If a plaintiff pleads several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them.’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.A | 1 | 1 |
Swanson v. Morongo Unif. School Dist. CA4/3green2 sentences2015The court granted Townsend’s continuance request and granted him leave to file a new responsive separate statement based on the information discovered during the two depositions. 5 of action or there is a complete defense to the claim. [Citations.] To meet this burden, the defendant must present evidence sufficient to show he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] “‘If a plaintiff pleads several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them.’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.A 2015The court granted Townsend’s continuance request and granted him leave to file a new responsive separate statement based on the information discovered during the two depositions. 5 of action or there is a complete defense to the claim. [Citations.] To meet this burden, the defendant must present evidence sufficient to show he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] “‘If a plaintiff pleads several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them.’”’” (Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.A | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/7
green
1 sentence2025Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably conclude that Seiden was seeking “just more delays” and had not “demonstrated a willingness and ability to comply with the procedural requirements that led to the dismissal” (id. at p. 729).15 15 Seiden relies on Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918 , where the court held that the plaintiff, who sought to vacate a court order so that she could file an opposition, substantially complied with the proposed pleading requirement by setting forth “the same factual contentions and legal arguments . . . in her va | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Alhambra v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321, 135 [“ ‘ “ ‘[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief’ ” ’ ”].) At oral argument in this court, the People urged this court to continue our analysis with an application of the factors set forth in City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118 (Alhambra). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.
green
1 sentence2025Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)” 6 consideration of additional reply ‘evidence is not an abuse of discretion so long as the party opposing the motion for summary judgment has notice and an opportunity to respond to the new material.’ ” (Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438, 449 .) Orcutt did not ask the court to continue the hearing to respond to the supplemental declaration. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Seibert v. City of San Jose
green
1 sentence2024And, because section 1172.2 prescribes no consequence or penalty for failing to hold a hearing within the 10-day time period (§ 1172.2, subd. (c)), the Legislature ostensibly intended to allow the courts to continue such hearings upon a showing of good cause (see Siebert v. City of San Jose, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1038-1040).10 10 Former section 1170, subdivision (e)(3), contained a 10-day hearing requirement in substantially the same language as its replacement statue, section 1172.2, subdivision (c). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Tingcungco
green
1 sentence2023Some courts insist upon a strict literal reading of the statute (see, e.g., People v. Tingcungco (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 159 ; People v. Seneca Ins. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Badie v. Bank of America
green
1 sentence2022(See Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 784– 785.) Plaintiffs also contend that “[c]ourts do not have the authority to grant summary judgment where a [party’s] attorney is unavailable [] due to health reasons.” For support, they cite Ward v. L.A. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera
green
1 sentence2013(Tutor- Saliba Corp. v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 604, 617 .) Here, Plaintiffs requested that the trial court continue the hearing on the anti- SLAPP motion to allow them to conduct discovery on whether Stone's counsel (1) did a forensic analysis of Sub-Rider A or other allegedly fabricated documents, and (2) objectively analyzed Stone's damage claims, including any expert analysis. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Villarán v. Loíza Sugar Co.
green
1 sentence1906(Schwartz v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. 106 , [ 43 Pac. 580 ].) So far as appears from the petition and accompanying papers and purported copy of records, the errors complained of were mere errors occurring at the hearing, and related to the admissibility of evidence, to the refusal of the court to continue the hearing, to the giving of certain instructions and like questions. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Schwarz v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1906(Schwartz v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. 106 , [ 43 Pac. 580 ].) So far as appears from the petition and accompanying papers and purported copy of records, the errors complained of were mere errors occurring at the hearing, and related to the admissibility of evidence, to the refusal of the court to continue the hearing, to the giving of certain instructions and like questions. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.