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.
13 California opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Sacramento v. Drewgreen2 sentences2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu 2016If the trial court is mistaken about the scope of its discretion, the mistaken position may be ‘reasonable’, i.e., one as to which reasonable judges could differ. [Citation.] But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law.” (City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 1297–1298.) II. | 6 | 10 |
Flannery v. California Highway Patrolgreen2 sentences2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu 2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu | 3 | 3 |
Nichols v. City of Taftgreen2 sentences2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu 2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu | 3 | 3 |
Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State Universitygreen2 sentences2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu 2016(See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ] [noting that “if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law”]; Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 634 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 632 ] [“reversal is required where there is no reasonable basis for the ruling or when the trial court has applied the wrong test to determine if the statutory requirements were satisfied”]; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 680 ] [quoting wrong test langu | 2 | 5 |
Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Committeegreen2 sentences2010But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law.”); Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Com. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1203 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 ] (“Here, the trial court appears to have erroneously interpreted the UDoR, and on this basis, rejected some of the consent forms. 2010But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law.”); Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Com. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1203 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 ] (“Here, the trial court appears to have erroneously interpreted the UDoR, and on this basis, rejected some of the consent forms. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2009(See, e.g., the majority and dissenting opinions in Baggett v. Gates [(1982)] 32 Cal.3d 128 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874 ].) But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law." ( City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 1297-1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ]; accord, People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728 , 737 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ].) Here, because the particular security measure at issue carried a grave risk of prejudice by singling appellant out as potentially dangerous or untrustworthy, the court could no 2009(See, e.g., the majority and dissenting opinions in Baggett v. Gates [(1982)] 32 Cal.3d 128 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874 ].) But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law." ( City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 1297-1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ]; accord, People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728 , 737 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ].) Here, because the particular security measure at issue carried a grave risk of prejudice by singling appellant out as potentially dangerous or untrustworthy, the court could no | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baggett v. Gates
green
2 sentences2009(See, e.g., the majority and dissenting opinions in Baggett v. Gates [(1982)] 32 Cal.3d 128 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874 ].) But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law." ( City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 1297-1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ]; accord, People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728 , 737 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ].) Here, because the particular security measure at issue carried a grave risk of prejudice by singling appellant out as potentially dangerous or untrustworthy, the court could no 2009(See, e.g., the majority and dissenting opinions in Baggett v. Gates [(1982)] 32 Cal.3d 128 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874 ].) But if the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law." ( City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 1297-1298 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 704 ]; accord, People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728 , 737 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 ].) Here, because the particular security measure at issue carried a grave risk of prejudice by singling appellant out as potentially dangerous or untrustworthy, the court could no | 3 | 1989–2009 |
Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013(Boston, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 950 .) We think the trial court was mistaken about the circumstances as they affected the scope of its discretion. "[I]f the trial court acts in accord with its mistaken view the action is nonetheless error; it is wrong on the law." (City of Sacramento v. Drew, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 .) We do not substitute our discretion for that of the trial court, but we do find that the court failed to act in accordance with the statutory guidelines when it terminated the case for these technical procedural problems, in light of the lack of showing of undue p | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.