12 California opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporationgreen2 sentences2021(Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468 .) “In evaluating the court’s refusal to permit an amendment, we are governed by an abuse-of-discretion review standard. [Citation.] The court abuses its discretion if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment would cure the defects. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden to identify specific facts showing the complaint can be amended to state a viable cause of action. [Citation.] An appellant can meet this burden by identifying new facts or theories on appeal.” (Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at 2020(Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468 .) “In evaluating the court's refusal to permit an amendment, we are governed by an abuse-of-discretion review standard. [Citation.] The court abuses its discretion if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment would cure the defects. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden to identify specific facts showing the complaint can be amended to state a viable cause of action. [Citation.] An appellant can meet this burden by identifying new facts or theories on appeal.” (Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc., supra, 13 7 Cal.App.5th | 2 | 2 |
Pipitone v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2023(See Pipitone v. Williams (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1451 [acknowledging split in authority and concluding de novo standard of review applied to evidentiary rulings “determined on the papers and based on questions of law such as hearsay”].) The California Supreme Court has not decided whether a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on a motion for summary judgment are reviewed de novo or for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Tamburina v. Combined Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2020(See, e.g., Tamburina, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 328 [stating that "although generally the determination whether prosecution of an action was impracticable is a matter within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion review standard," appellate court independently reviews "the applicability of section 583.340 [, subdivision] (c) to undisputed facts"]; Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313, 324 (Tanguilig) [stating that "a trial court's determination of whether section 583.310 was tolled for impossibility, impracticability, or futility," i 2020(See, e.g., Tamburina, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 328 [stating that "although generally the determination whether prosecution of an action was impracticable is a matter within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion review standard," appellate court independently reviews "the applicability of section 583.340 [, subdivision] (c) to undisputed facts"]; Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313, 324 (Tanguilig) [stating that "a trial court's determination of whether section 583.310 was tolled for impossibility, impracticability, or futility," i | 1 | 1 |
Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc.green1 sentence2020(See, e.g., Tamburina, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 328 [stating that "although generally the determination whether prosecution of an action was impracticable is a matter within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion review standard," appellate court independently reviews "the applicability of section 583.340 [, subdivision] (c) to undisputed facts"]; Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313, 324 (Tanguilig) [stating that "a trial court's determination of whether section 583.310 was tolled for impossibility, impracticability, or futility," i | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gardeleygreen2 sentences2007(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618-620 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ].) Disputes regarding the reliability of hearsay on which an expert relies “must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment.” (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 ].) However, “[t]he conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently.” (Rowland, at p. 266.) We conclude Own 2007(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618-620 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ].) Disputes regarding the reliability of hearsay on which an expert relies “must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment.” (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 ].) However, “[t]he conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently.” (Rowland, at p. 266.) We conclude Own | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rowlandgreen2 sentences2007(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618-620 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ].) Disputes regarding the reliability of hearsay on which an expert relies “must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment.” (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 ].) However, “[t]he conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently.” (Rowland, at p. 266.) We conclude Own 2007(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618-620 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ].) Disputes regarding the reliability of hearsay on which an expert relies “must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment.” (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 ].) However, “[t]he conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently.” (Rowland, at p. 266.) We conclude Own | 1 | 1 |
People v. Montielred2 sentences2007(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618-620 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ].) Disputes regarding the reliability of hearsay on which an expert relies “must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment.” (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 ].) However, “[t]he conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently.” (Rowland, at p. 266.) We conclude Own 2007(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 618-620 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ].) Disputes regarding the reliability of hearsay on which an expert relies “must generally be left to the trial court’s sound judgment.” (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 ].) However, “[t]he conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently.” (Rowland, at p. 266.) We conclude Own | 1 | 1 |
City of Santa Monica v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1985The court held that the plaintiffs had "failed to show any pressing injury that would result from delay in obtaining relief...." ( Id., at p. 46; [7] accord City of Santa Monica v. Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal. App.2d 223, 226-227 [ 41 Cal. Rptr. 824 ].) At least one Court of Appeal has adhered to the abuse of discretion review standard where the trial court had denied an application for a preliminary injunction by a plaintiff challenging a statute as facially unconstitutional. 1985The court held that the plaintiffs had "failed to show any pressing injury that would result from delay in obtaining relief...." ( Id., at p. 46; [7] accord City of Santa Monica v. Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal. App.2d 223, 226-227 [ 41 Cal. Rptr. 824 ].) At least one Court of Appeal has adhered to the abuse of discretion review standard where the trial court had denied an application for a preliminary injunction by a plaintiff challenging a statute as facially unconstitutional. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cansino v. Bank of America
green
2 sentences2021(Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468 .) “In evaluating the court’s refusal to permit an amendment, we are governed by an abuse-of-discretion review standard. [Citation.] The court abuses its discretion if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment would cure the defects. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden to identify specific facts showing the complaint can be amended to state a viable cause of action. [Citation.] An appellant can meet this burden by identifying new facts or theories on appeal.” (Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at 2020(Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468 .) “In evaluating the court's refusal to permit an amendment, we are governed by an abuse-of-discretion review standard. [Citation.] The court abuses its discretion if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment would cure the defects. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden to identify specific facts showing the complaint can be amended to state a viable cause of action. [Citation.] An appellant can meet this burden by identifying new facts or theories on appeal.” (Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc., supra, 13 7 Cal.App.5th | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Schifando v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2017Review Standard "On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the 'reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.' [Citation.] It 'is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer [if] the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory.' [Citation.] We apply a de novo standard in reviewing the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer." ( Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 385 , 389, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 618 .) In ev 2017Review Standard "On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the 'reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.' [Citation.] It 'is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer [if] the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory.' [Citation.] We apply a de novo standard in reviewing the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer." ( Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 385 , 389, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 618 .) In ev | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P.
green
2 sentences2017Review Standard "On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the 'reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.' [Citation.] It 'is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer [if] the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory.' [Citation.] We apply a de novo standard in reviewing the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer." ( Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 385 , 389, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 618 .) In ev 2017Review Standard "On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the 'reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.' [Citation.] It 'is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer [if] the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory.' [Citation.] We apply a de novo standard in reviewing the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer." ( Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 385 , 389, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 618 .) In ev | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Turner
green
2 sentences1995We adhere to the Supreme Court’s guidance, and therefore apply the abuse of discretion standard to this case.’ (Id. at p. 1426.) Even were we free to endorse either rule, we would on policy grounds adopt the abuse of discretion standard for review of such rulings.” (People v. Turner, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d 1207, 1214 .) For these same reasons, we apply the abuse of discretion review standard. 3 b. 1995We adhere to the Supreme Court's guidance, and therefore apply the abuse of discretion standard to this case.' ( Id. at p. 1426.) Even were we free to endorse either rule, we would on policy grounds adopt the abuse of discretion standard for review of such rulings." ( People v. Turner, supra, 219 Cal. App.3d 1207, 1214 .) For these same reasons, we apply the abuse of discretion review standard. [3] b. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSN. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1988(Cf. American Booksellers Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 197 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at page 289 , where there had been a denial of a petition for a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeal had failed to make the abuse of discretion analysis. 1988(Cf. American Booksellers Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 197 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at page 289 , where there had been a denial of a petition for a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeal had failed to make the abuse of discretion analysis. | 2 | 1985–1988 |
Rancho Santa Fe Ass'n v. Dolan-King
green
1 sentence2023(McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283 , 295–296 [abuse of discretion standard applies to rulings on in limine motion to exclude evidence]; Osborne v. Todd Farm Service (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 43 , 50–51 [admissibility of evidence generally reviewed for abuse of discretion]; Rancho Santa Fe Assn. v. Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28 , 44–45.) But absent some indication of the court’s analysis or legal basis in reaching any such evidentiary ruling and Weisbord’s explanation as to why it is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd (K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Osborne v. Todd Farm Service
green
1 sentence2023(McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283 , 295–296 [abuse of discretion standard applies to rulings on in limine motion to exclude evidence]; Osborne v. Todd Farm Service (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 43 , 50–51 [admissibility of evidence generally reviewed for abuse of discretion]; Rancho Santa Fe Assn. v. Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28 , 44–45.) But absent some indication of the court’s analysis or legal basis in reaching any such evidentiary ruling and Weisbord’s explanation as to why it is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd (K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Asso.
green
1 sentence2023(McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283 , 295–296 [abuse of discretion standard applies to rulings on in limine motion to exclude evidence]; Osborne v. Todd Farm Service (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 43 , 50–51 [admissibility of evidence generally reviewed for abuse of discretion]; Rancho Santa Fe Assn. v. Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28 , 44–45.) But absent some indication of the court’s analysis or legal basis in reaching any such evidentiary ruling and Weisbord’s explanation as to why it is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd (K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Minnick v. Auto. Creations, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021(Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468 .) “In evaluating the court’s refusal to permit an amendment, we are governed by an abuse-of-discretion review standard. [Citation.] The court abuses its discretion if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment would cure the defects. [Citation.] The appellant has the burden to identify specific facts showing the complaint can be amended to state a viable cause of action. [Citation.] An appellant can meet this burden by identifying new facts or theories on appeal.” (Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sanowicz v. Bacal
green
2 sentences2017Proc., § 472c, subd. (a) ; Sanowicz v. Bacal (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1027 , 1044, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 .) II. 2017Proc., § 472c, subd. (a) ; Sanowicz v. Bacal (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1027 , 1044, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 .) II. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Westrec Marina Management. Inc. v. Jardine Insurance Brokers Orange County, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007Westrec sets forth the appropriate review standard on this claim. “ ‘ “ ‘The trial court is given considerable latitude in determining the qualifications of an expert and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown.’ ” ’ ” (Westrec, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1051 .) The abuse of discretion review standard applies not only to the expert’s qualifications, but also to the trier of fact’s decision on the reliability of expert opinion testimony. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ewap, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences1988(Cf. EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 179 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] and 7978 Corporation v. Pitchess (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 42 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) Other Courts of Appeal have adhered to the abuse of discretion review standard where the trial court has denied the application for a preliminary injunction by a plaintiff challenging a statute as unconstitutional. 1988(Cf. EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 179 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] and 7978 Corporation v. Pitchess (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 42 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) Other Courts of Appeal have adhered to the abuse of discretion review standard where the trial court has denied the application for a preliminary injunction by a plaintiff challenging a statute as unconstitutional. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Cohen v. Board of Supervisors
green
1 sentence1988(Cf. American Booksellers Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 197 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at page 289 , where there had been a denial of a petition for a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeal had failed to make the abuse of discretion analysis. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
7978 CORPORATION v. Pitchess
green
2 sentences1988(Cf. EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 179 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] and 7978 Corporation v. Pitchess (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 42 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) Other Courts of Appeal have adhered to the abuse of discretion review standard where the trial court has denied the application for a preliminary injunction by a plaintiff challenging a statute as unconstitutional. 1988(Cf. EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 179 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 ] and 7978 Corporation v. Pitchess (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 42 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) Other Courts of Appeal have adhered to the abuse of discretion review standard where the trial court has denied the application for a preliminary injunction by a plaintiff challenging a statute as unconstitutional. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.