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 2 courts 1972–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
McGirr v. Gulf Oil Corp.green2 sentences2017This rule “is embodied in section 2309 of the Civil Code and reads as follows: ‘An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.’ ” (McGirr v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 246, 254 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 902 ].) Despite the attention they are paid by the owners, however, neither the statute of frauds itself (as expressed in Phillippe) nor the equal dignities rule is directly applicable here. 2017This rule “is embodied in section 2309 of the Civil Code and reads as follows: ‘An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.’ ” (McGirr v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 246, 254 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 902 ].) Despite the attention they are paid by the owners, however, neither the statute of frauds itself (as expressed in Phillippe) nor the equal dignities rule is directly applicable here. | 2 | 3 |
Rakestraw v. Rodriguesgreen2 sentences2015(Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loans Trust 2002-2 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 544, 553 .) The equal dignities rule of Civil Code section 2309 provides that a principal’s oral authorization to an agent “is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Defendants rely on Rakestraw v. Rodriques (1972) 8 Cal.3d 67 for the proposition that the authorization of Marina by plaintiff was not necessarily required to be in writing. 2002"Ratification is the voluntary election by a person to adopt in some manner as his own an act which was purportedly done on his behalf by another person, the effect of which, as to some or all persons, is to treat the act as if originally authorized by him. [Citations.]" ( Rakestraw v. Rodrigues (1972) 8 Cal.3d 67, 73 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 57 , 500 P.2d 1401 .) However, the equal dignities rule of Civil Code section 2310 (section 2310) provides that a ratification of an agent's act "can be made only in the manner that would have been necessary to confer an original authority for the act ratified." | 1 | 3 |
Van't Rood v. County of Santa Claragreen2 sentences2017Code, § 2310.) Thus, where the equal dignities rule applies, it requires formal, written ratification.” (van’t Rood v. County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 571 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 ]; accord, John Paul Lumber Co. v. Agnew (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 613, 622 [ 270 P.2d 1044 ] [corporation’s ratification of alleged agent’s unauthorized sale of its property can only be effected through a resolution of its board of directors when duly assembled].) Accordingly, absent a majority vote of the elected council members (City Charter, art. 2017Code, § 2310.) Thus, where the equal dignities rule applies, it requires formal, written ratification.” (van’t Rood v. County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 571 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 ]; accord, John Paul Lumber Co. v. Agnew (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 613, 622 [ 270 P.2d 1044 ] [corporation’s ratification of alleged agent’s unauthorized sale of its property can only be effected through a resolution of its board of directors when duly assembled].) Accordingly, absent a majority vote of the elected council members (City Charter, art. | 1 | 2 |
John Paul Lumber Co. v. Agnewgreen2 sentences2017Code, § 2310.) Thus, where the equal dignities rule applies, it requires formal, written ratification.” (van’t Rood v. County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 571 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 ]; accord, John Paul Lumber Co. v. Agnew (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 613, 622 [ 270 P.2d 1044 ] [corporation’s ratification of alleged agent’s unauthorized sale of its property can only be effected through a resolution of its board of directors when duly assembled].) Accordingly, absent a majority vote of the elected council members (City Charter, art. 2017Code, § 2310.) Thus, where the equal dignities rule applies, it requires formal, written ratification.” (van’t Rood v. County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 571 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 ]; accord, John Paul Lumber Co. v. Agnew (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 613, 622 [ 270 P.2d 1044 ] [corporation’s ratification of alleged agent’s unauthorized sale of its property can only be effected through a resolution of its board of directors when duly assembled].) Accordingly, absent a majority vote of the elected council members (City Charter, art. | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. City of Red Bluffgreen2 sentences2014(See Quantification 16 Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 [“‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”]; Walton v. City of Red Bluff (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 [statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that is waived if it is not pleaded in the answer]; 3 Ann Taylor Schwing California Affirmative Defenses § 54:7 (2d ed. 2014) [“The defendant should plead the equal dignities rule as a defense to avoid any claim of waiver.”].) Even if the defense was not waived, “[a] principal is estopped to raise the equal dignities rule against a contracting t 2014(See Quantification 16 Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 [“‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”]; Walton v. City of Red Bluff (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 [statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that is waived if it is not pleaded in the answer]; 3 Ann Taylor Schwing California Affirmative Defenses § 54:7 (2d ed. 2014) [“The defendant should plead the equal dignities rule as a defense to avoid any claim of waiver.”].) Even if the defense was not waived, “[a] principal is estopped to raise the equal dignities rule against a contracting t | 1 | 1 |
Quantification Settlement Agreement Casesgreen2 sentences2014(See Quantification 16 Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 [“‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”]; Walton v. City of Red Bluff (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 [statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that is waived if it is not pleaded in the answer]; 3 Ann Taylor Schwing California Affirmative Defenses § 54:7 (2d ed. 2014) [“The defendant should plead the equal dignities rule as a defense to avoid any claim of waiver.”].) Even if the defense was not waived, “[a] principal is estopped to raise the equal dignities rule against a contracting t 2014(See Quantification 16 Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 [“‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”]; Walton v. City of Red Bluff (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 [statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that is waived if it is not pleaded in the answer]; 3 Ann Taylor Schwing California Affirmative Defenses § 54:7 (2d ed. 2014) [“The defendant should plead the equal dignities rule as a defense to avoid any claim of waiver.”].) Even if the defense was not waived, “[a] principal is estopped to raise the equal dignities rule against a contracting t | 1 | 1 |
Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2013(Fontenot, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 270 [plaintiff has burden to affirmatively plead facts demonstrating an assignment of trust deed was improper].) Thomas further asserts the equal dignities rule in Civil Code section 2309 required the person to have written authority to act on behalf of both parties and she did not. | 1 | 1 |
Higson v. Montgomery Ward & Co.green2 sentences1976(McGirr v. Gulf Oil Corp., 41 Cal.App.3d 246, 258 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; Higson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 263 Cal.App.2d 333, 341-342 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 497 ].) Defendant assigned Sennes the title of entertainment director and placed his name on the Frontier Hotel marquee as the presenter of entertainment. 1976(McGirr v. Gulf Oil Corp., 41 Cal.App.3d 246, 258 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]; Higson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 263 Cal.App.2d 333, 341-342 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 497 ].) Defendant assigned Sennes the title of entertainment director and placed his name on the Frontier Hotel marquee as the presenter of entertainment. | 1 | 1 |
Leiter v. Handelsmangreen2 sentences1976Code, § 1657; Leiter v. Handelsman, 125 Cal.App.2d 243, 251 [ 270 P.2d 563 ].) The equal dignities rule (Civ. 1976Code, § 1657; Leiter v. Handelsman, 125 Cal.App.2d 243, 251 [ 270 P.2d 563 ].) The equal dignities rule (Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Shelley v. Board of Tradegreen2 sentences1976(Shelley v. Board of Trade, 87 Cal.App. 344, 354 [ 262 P. 403 ].) The trial court’s decision rested on its finding of an estoppel to raise the equal dignities rule: “4. 1976(Shelley v. Board of Trade, 87 Cal.App. 344, 354 [ 262 P. 403 ].) The trial court’s decision rested on its finding of an estoppel to raise the equal dignities rule: “4. | 1 | 1 |
Angus v. Londongreen2 sentences1972(See O’Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 563 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 393 P.2d 682 ]; Angus v. London, 92 Cal.App.2d 282, 285 [ 206 P.2d 869 ].) To hold that uninsured motorist coverage can be excluded by an oral authorization from a potential insured to an insurance agent to sign a deletion agreement on behalf of the insured would do violence to both the letter and the spirit of the statute as well as to the equal dignities rule. 1972(See O’Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 563 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 393 P.2d 682 ]; Angus v. London, 92 Cal.App.2d 282, 285 [ 206 P.2d 869 ].) To hold that uninsured motorist coverage can be excluded by an oral authorization from a potential insured to an insurance agent to sign a deletion agreement on behalf of the insured would do violence to both the letter and the spirit of the statute as well as to the equal dignities rule. | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. Gallaghergreen2 sentences1972(See Leonard v. Gallagher, 235 Cal.App.2d 362, 371 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 211 ].) It not only would invite abuses, but give rise to disputes and litigation concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage thereby defeating the manifest public policy that coverage is to be deemed to be provided in the absence of a clear and specific written agreement to the contrary, knowingly entered into by the insured. 1972(See Leonard v. Gallagher, 235 Cal.App.2d 362, 371 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 211 ].) It not only would invite abuses, but give rise to disputes and litigation concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage thereby defeating the manifest public policy that coverage is to be deemed to be provided in the absence of a clear and specific written agreement to the contrary, knowingly entered into by the insured. | 1 | 1 |
O'Banion v. Paradisogreen2 sentences1972(See O’Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 563 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 393 P.2d 682 ]; Angus v. London, 92 Cal.App.2d 282, 285 [ 206 P.2d 869 ].) To hold that uninsured motorist coverage can be excluded by an oral authorization from a potential insured to an insurance agent to sign a deletion agreement on behalf of the insured would do violence to both the letter and the spirit of the statute as well as to the equal dignities rule. 1972(See O’Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 563 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 393 P.2d 682 ]; Angus v. London, 92 Cal.App.2d 282, 285 [ 206 P.2d 869 ].) To hold that uninsured motorist coverage can be excluded by an oral authorization from a potential insured to an insurance agent to sign a deletion agreement on behalf of the insured would do violence to both the letter and the spirit of the statute as well as to the equal dignities rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Stephens
green
1 sentence2016Relying on Estate of Stephens (2002) 28 Cal.4th 665 , appellants argue that under the equal dignities rule of Civil Code section 2310, Medellin could not have ratified the signature on the interspousal transfer deed, except in writing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Secrest v. SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2002-2
green
1 sentence2015(Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loans Trust 2002-2 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 544, 553 .) The equal dignities rule of Civil Code section 2309 provides that a principal’s oral authorization to an agent “is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Defendants rely on Rakestraw v. Rodriques (1972) 8 Cal.3d 67 for the proposition that the authorization of Marina by plaintiff was not necessarily required to be in writing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sunset-Sternau Food Co. v. Bonzi
green
1 sentence2015Defendants quoted, among other things, the following statement from Rakestraw: “In Sunset-Sternau [Food Co. v. Bonzi (1964) 60 Cal.2d 834 ] we held that Civil Code section 2309, requiring that authorization for a contract required in law to be in writing must also be in writing, was not intended to apply as between an agent and principal.” ( Rakestraw, supra, at p. 76 .) Contrary to defendants’ position, this statement does not establish that a forbearance agreement with a borrower is enforceable when the agreement is signed by the borrower’s agent, and the agent’s authority to sign the agreem | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kerner v. Hughes Tool Co.
green
2 sentences2014(See Quantification 16 Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 [“‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”]; Walton v. City of Red Bluff (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 [statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that is waived if it is not pleaded in the answer]; 3 Ann Taylor Schwing California Affirmative Defenses § 54:7 (2d ed. 2014) [“The defendant should plead the equal dignities rule as a defense to avoid any claim of waiver.”].) Even if the defense was not waived, “[a] principal is estopped to raise the equal dignities rule against a contracting t 2014(See Quantification 16 Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 [“‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”]; Walton v. City of Red Bluff (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 117, 131 [statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that is waived if it is not pleaded in the answer]; 3 Ann Taylor Schwing California Affirmative Defenses § 54:7 (2d ed. 2014) [“The defendant should plead the equal dignities rule as a defense to avoid any claim of waiver.”].) Even if the defense was not waived, “[a] principal is estopped to raise the equal dignities rule against a contracting t | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 46 .) This point also does not persuade us Thomas could successfully amend his SAC to state a cause of action because, even if the equal dignities rule applied to the assignment, Thomas offers no factual allegations showing the person executing the assignment did not have the requisite written authority or that compliance with the equal dignities rule was not waived or ratified by the parties to the assignment. 11 D MERS's Lack of Beneficial Interest in Promissory Note Thomas further contends the assignment of the promisso | 1 | 2013–2013 |
County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City
green
2 sentences2002Ordinarily it is of a temporary character, while an ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct or of government."'" ( County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 979 , 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , quoting Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 860 , 1 Cal.Rptr. 733 .) The equal dignities rule is generally applicable to situations where an agent's authority to bind a principal to a written agreement must be in writing. 2002Ordinarily it is of a temporary character, while an ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct or of government."'" ( County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 979 , 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , quoting Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 860 , 1 Cal.Rptr. 733 .) The equal dignities rule is generally applicable to situations where an agent's authority to bind a principal to a written agreement must be in writing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences2002Ordinarily it is of a temporary character, while an ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct or of government."'" ( County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 979 , 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , quoting Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 860 , 1 Cal.Rptr. 733 .) The equal dignities rule is generally applicable to situations where an agent's authority to bind a principal to a written agreement must be in writing. 2002Ordinarily it is of a temporary character, while an ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct or of government."'" ( County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 979 , 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , quoting Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 860 , 1 Cal.Rptr. 733 .) The equal dignities rule is generally applicable to situations where an agent's authority to bind a principal to a written agreement must be in writing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pacific Automobile Insurance v. Wolff
green
2 sentences1995Rather, in Wolff , the agent had been orally authorized to obtain premium financing and sign the financing documents, but he apparently contended the oral authorization was ineffective, since under the equal dignities rule embodied in Civil Code section 2309, “an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Application of this general rule in light of the specific provision of section 673, added by the 1973 amendment, which allows the documents to be signed “on behalf of” the insured, was properly rejected by Wolff. ( 72 Ca 1995For the same reasons Division Three in Wolff, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d at page 541 rejected the attempt to engraft a general rule of law, the equal dignities rule, upon the contrary language of section 673, we must reject CII’s attempt to vary the language of section 673 by engrafting onto it a different general rule concerning latent equities. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Wright & Co. v. Levy
green
1 sentence1995CII cites the case of Wright & Co. v. Levy (1859) 12 Cal. 257 (Levy) for the proposition that where an assignee purchases an assignment for value in good faith, without knowledge of any latent defects, the assignee takes the claim free from equities of all others except the original obligor. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ellis v. Mihelis
green
2 sentences1992A petition for a rehearing was denied March 13, 1992, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 13, 1992. 1 All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise specified. 2 The broker/escrow defendants have raised a defense to Dameshghi’s action that under the equal dignities rule (Ellis v. Mihelis (1963) 60 Cal.2d 206 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 415 , 384 P.2d 7 ]), Dameshghi may not adopt his brother’s signature as his own without an authorization in writing for that purpose. 1992A petition for a rehearing was denied March 13, 1992, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 13, 1992. 1 All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise specified. 2 The broker/escrow defendants have raised a defense to Dameshghi’s action that under the equal dignities rule (Ellis v. Mihelis (1963) 60 Cal.2d 206 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 415 , 384 P.2d 7 ]), Dameshghi may not adopt his brother’s signature as his own without an authorization in writing for that purpose. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Murphy v. Munson
green
2 sentences1972Code, § 11580.2.) Civil Code, section 2309, commonly referred to as the equal dignities rule, provides: “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Defendant urges that the oral authorization was not violative of the equal dignities rule, citing Kadota Fig Assn. v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 815 [ 167 P.2d 523 ], and Murphy v. Munson, 95 Cal.App.2d 306 [ 212 P.2d 603 ]. 1972Code, § 11580.2.) Civil Code, section 2309, commonly referred to as the equal dignities rule, provides: “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Defendant urges that the oral authorization was not violative of the equal dignities rule, citing Kadota Fig Assn. v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 815 [ 167 P.2d 523 ], and Murphy v. Munson, 95 Cal.App.2d 306 [ 212 P.2d 603 ]. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co.
green
2 sentences1972Code, § 11580.2.) Civil Code, section 2309, commonly referred to as the equal dignities rule, provides: “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Defendant urges that the oral authorization was not violative of the equal dignities rule, citing Kadota Fig Assn. v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 815 [ 167 P.2d 523 ], and Murphy v. Munson, 95 Cal.App.2d 306 [ 212 P.2d 603 ]. 1972Code, § 11580.2.) Civil Code, section 2309, commonly referred to as the equal dignities rule, provides: “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.” Defendant urges that the oral authorization was not violative of the equal dignities rule, citing Kadota Fig Assn. v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 815 [ 167 P.2d 523 ], and Murphy v. Munson, 95 Cal.App.2d 306 [ 212 P.2d 603 ]. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.