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.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zellerino v. Browngreen2 sentences2014(Compare, Zellerino, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1117 [“near-total failure” to comply with requirements of expert disclosure statute].) Having concluded the trial court abused its discretion in finding plaintiffs unreasonably failed to disclose their experts, we need not address the other contentions of error raised by plaintiffs. 13 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the action. 2014(Cf. Zellerino, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1117 [“near-total failure” to comply with requirements of expert disclosure statute].) Having concluded the trial court abused its discretion in finding plaintiffs unreasonably failed to disclose their experts, we need not address the other contentions of error raised by plaintiffs. *1449 Disposition The judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the action. | 2 | 2 |
Richmond v. Dofflemyergreen1 sentence2024(Richmond v. Dofflemyer (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 745, 764 [“The rule is that only ultimate facts need be stated, not evidentiary facts.”].) Similarly, we reject the Jimenezes’ repeated complaints that the trial court’s decision was not detailed enough as it did not address every aspect of the Jimenezes’ evidence and arguments. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schnabelgreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pricegreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 1 | 1 |
People v. PESCADORgreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 1 | 1 |
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2007(See Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 332 [rejecting argument that trial court failed to explain basis for finding of commonality, where the court had examined the parties’ contentions at the hearing and noted its reliance on the “moving papers” and admissible evidence].) 7 D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California
green
1 sentence2025(Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963 , 976, fn. 9, citing Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) 8 and compliance with the terms of the endowments of the university and such competitive bidding procedures as may be made applicable to the university by statute for the letting of construction contracts, sales of real property, and purchasing of materials, goods, and services. . . .” This section “grants the regents broad powers to organize and govern the university and limits the Legislature’s power to regulate either the university or the regents.” (San Francisco Labor | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Committee to Save Beverly Highlands Homes Ass'n v. Beverly Highlands Homes Ass'n
green
1 sentence2024(Lake Lindero Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Barone (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 834 , 844.) “Likewise, insofar as the contentions concern the trial court’s construction of the [Owners’] Association’s [CC&Rs,] bylaws and our state’s governing statutes, these issues too are subject to our de novo review.” (Ibid.) “Our review of documents in the case is independent as well, provided no conflicting extrinsic evidence on the meaning of the documents was presented to the trial court.” (Committee to Save the Beverly Highlands Homes Ass’n v. Beverly Highlands Homes Ass’n (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1261 .) “We m | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Singh v. Singh
green
1 sentence2024(Lake Lindero Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Barone (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 834 , 844.) “Likewise, insofar as the contentions concern the trial court’s construction of the [Owners’] Association’s [CC&Rs,] bylaws and our state’s governing statutes, these issues too are subject to our de novo review.” (Ibid.) “Our review of documents in the case is independent as well, provided no conflicting extrinsic evidence on the meaning of the documents was presented to the trial court.” (Committee to Save the Beverly Highlands Homes Ass’n v. Beverly Highlands Homes Ass’n (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1261 .) “We m | 1 | 2024–2024 |
May v. City of Milpitas
green
1 sentence2022(May v. City of Milpitas (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323 .) On appeal from an order of dismissal after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, our review is de novo. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Ramos
green
1 sentence2014As matters stand, we can only speculate that the prosecutor would have sought to introduce it in rebuttal; that the trial court would have erroneously overruled a proper objection; and that its admission would have 15 been prejudicial under whatever evidentiary circumstances then prevailed.” (Ramos, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1168 .) Ramos is dispositive here. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Greenup v. Rodman
green
2 sentences1989They direct us to Code of Civil Procedure section 580 and the California Supreme Court decision in Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 220 , 726 P.2d 1295 ] which emphasized the significance of adequate notice which precludes obtaining a default judgment for a sum greater than that requested in the complaint, Although their contention has merit, we address their more pervasive argument that the court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions striking their pleadings and entering their default. 1989They direct us to Code of Civil Procedure section 580 and the California Supreme Court decision in Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 220 , 726 P.2d 1295 ] which emphasized the significance of adequate notice which precludes obtaining a default judgment for a sum greater than that requested in the complaint, Although their contention has merit, we address their more pervasive argument that the court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions striking their pleadings and entering their default. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Burgett v. Texas
green
2 sentences1969The defendant denied that he had told the officers that he had helped Yates load the television set in the trunk of the Ford. *274 Contentions The defendant states that “The sole issue to he determined in this Appeal is as to whether or not there was a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment .to the United States Constitution, and its counterpart in the California Constitution by admitting evidence of the prior convictions against the Appellant. ’ ’ The defendant argues that since it was not shown that at the time he suffered the prior convictions he was represented by counsel, 1969The defendant denied that he had told the officers that he had helped Yates load the television set in the trunk of the Ford. *274 Contentions The defendant states that “The sole issue to he determined in this Appeal is as to whether or not there was a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment .to the United States Constitution, and its counterpart in the California Constitution by admitting evidence of the prior convictions against the Appellant. ’ ’ The defendant argues that since it was not shown that at the time he suffered the prior convictions he was represented by counsel, | 1 | 1969–1969 |
People v. Schneider
green
2 sentences1943The judgment was affirmed (People v. Schneider, 36 Cal.App.2d 292 [ 98 P.2d 215 ]), the District Court of Appeal holding that there was no merit in any of the appellant’s contentions with the exception of the contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of truth in the charge of seven prior convictions, and as to the latter contention the court said: “Appellant further con *429 tends that the evidence is insufficient to prove the prior convictions. 1943The judgment was affirmed (People v. Schneider, 36 Cal.App.2d 292 [ 98 P.2d 215 ]), the District Court of Appeal holding that there was no merit in any of the appellant’s contentions with the exception of the contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of truth in the charge of seven prior convictions, and as to the latter contention the court said: “Appellant further con *429 tends that the evidence is insufficient to prove the prior convictions. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.