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 1965–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
108 HOLDINGS, LTD. v. City of Rohnert Parkgreen2 sentences2014While the Controller adverts to this identified shortfall in the statement of the facts, the Controller’s argument is based on the identification of revenues not yet authorized in law; we accordingly deem this other basis for the decision to withhold legislative salaries to be abandoned. (108 Holdings, Ltd. v. City of Rohnert Park (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 186, 193, fn. 3 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 ].) Similarly abandoned is an otherwise unexplained figure in the analysis of the budget (labeled “Liquidation of Encumbrances” and reflecting a reassignment of $770.1 million to expenditures from the Budget 2014While the Controller adverts to this identified shortfall in the statement of the facts, the Controller’s argument is based on the identification of revenues not yet authorized in law; we accordingly deem this other basis for the decision to withhold legislative salaries to be abandoned. (108 Holdings, Ltd. v. City of Rohnert Park (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 186, 193, fn. 3 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 ].) Similarly abandoned is an otherwise unexplained figure in the analysis of the budget (labeled “Liquidation of Encumbrances” and reflecting a reassignment of $770.1 million to expenditures from the Budget | 2 | 2 |
Clemente v. Amundsongreen2 sentences2003This is purely a question of law. ( Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 619 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 ; Clemente v. Amundson (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 .) For reasons stated above, the trial court properly resolved the matter on the Controller's motion for judgment on the pleadings. 2003This is purely a question of law. ( Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 619 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 ; Clemente v. Amundson (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 .) For reasons stated above, the trial court properly resolved the matter on the Controller's motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 2 |
Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees of Saint Agnes Medical Centergreen2 sentences2003This is purely a question of law. ( Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 619 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 ; Clemente v. Amundson (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 .) For reasons stated above, the trial court properly resolved the matter on the Controller's motion for judgment on the pleadings. 2003This is purely a question of law. ( Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 619 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 ; Clemente v. Amundson (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 .) For reasons stated above, the trial court properly resolved the matter on the Controller's motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 2 |
Olney v. Sacramento County Bar Assn.green2 sentences2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C 2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C | 1 | 1 |
Storch v. Silvermangreen2 sentences2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C 2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Westlygreen2 sentences2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder “shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate . . . .” (§ 1532, subd. (b); 7 cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853 [evidence of a violation of the UPL’s notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller’s immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 [the immunity conferred upon the Controller by section 1566 is absolute a 2006For its part, a corporation escheating stock is immune from an owner’s suit for recovery of the stock, for interest, for damages stemming from the delivery of the stock to the Controller, and for any similar type of liability. (§§ 1532, subd. (b), 1321, 1560.) In Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th 214 , Division Eight of our court held that the Controller’s immunity is absolute. | 1 | 1 |
Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co.green1 sentence2006The Legislature, faced with a choice between absolute immunity (which promotes delivery of unclaimed property to the Controller but provides only limited redress to the owners of the property) and conditional immunity (which would have discouraged delivery but allowed redress), plainly and unambiguously opted for absolute immunity. (§ 1532, subd. (b); cf. Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co. (7th Cir.1997) 109 F.3d 349, 353 [statutory scheme compelling transfer of funds to government and confining suits to claims for refund protects corporations "from being whipsawed"].) [10] For these reasons, th | 1 | 1 |
Stecks v. Younggreen2 sentences2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C 2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C | 1 | 1 |
Ley v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder “shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate . . . .” (§ 1532, subd. (b); 7 cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853 [evidence of a violation of the UPL’s notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller’s immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 [the immunity conferred upon the Controller by section 1566 is absolute a 2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder “shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate . . . .” (§ 1532, subd. (b); 7 cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853 [evidence of a violation of the UPL’s notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller’s immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 [the immunity conferred upon the Controller by section 1566 is absolute a | 1 | 1 |
California Association for Safety Education v. Browngreen2 sentences2003Continuing Appropriations The Court of Appeal initially scrutinized the category of “continuing appropriations.” In California Assn, for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1282 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 404 ], the court explained that “[a]n appropriation is a legislative act setting aside ‘a certain sum of money for a specified object in such manner that the executive officers are authorized to use that money and no more for such specified purpose.’ [Citation.] A continuous [or continuing] appropriation runs from year to year without the need for further authorization in the budget a 2003Continuing Appropriations The Court of Appeal initially scrutinized the category of “continuing appropriations.” In California Assn, for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1282 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 404 ], the court explained that “[a]n appropriation is a legislative act setting aside ‘a certain sum of money for a specified object in such manner that the executive officers are authorized to use that money and no more for such specified purpose.’ [Citation.] A continuous [or continuing] appropriation runs from year to year without the need for further authorization in the budget a | 1 | 1 |
Robert L. Phinney, District Director of Internal Revenue v. Milton Kay and Bernard Kay, as Executors of the Estate of Sarah Kay Rosenmangreen1 sentence1970(See Phinney v. Kay (5th Cir. 1960) 275 F.2d 776, 777, 780-781 ; Potter v. United States, 269 F.Supp. 545, 550 .) From the cases cited in the Controller’s brief and from our own research, it appears that there is no significant dissent in the federal cases from this conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Douglas Aircraft Co. v. Cranston
green
2 sentences2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C 2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C | 2 | 1965–2006 |
In Re Kuebler
green
2 sentences1979Moreover, Controller's exception to the interpretative use of the regulation because Cemetery was organized under Minnesota and not California corporate law is meritless. (8) We agree with Executrix' position that "the fact [Cemetery] was organized in Minnesota, rather *394 than California, should make no difference in determining whether its burial purposes are charitable ..." Finally, Controller's reliance on a New Jersey court's decision in In re Estate of Kuebler, 106 N.J. 1979We agree with Executrix’ position that “the fact [Cemetery] was organized in Minnesota, rather than California, should make no difference in determining whether its burial purposes are charitable. . .” Finally, Controller’s reliance on a New Jersey court’s decision in In re Estate of Kuebler, 106 N.J.Super. 13 [ 254 A.2d 115 ], as support for his contention Cemetery is not a charity is misplaced. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Fong v. Westly
green
1 sentence2006Upon delivery to the Controller of duplicate stock certificates, the holder "shall be relieved from all liability of every kind to any person ... for any losses or damages resulting to that person by the issuance and delivery to the Controller of the duplicate certificate ...." (§ 1532, subd. (b); [7] cf. Fong v. Westly, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-853, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 [evidence of a violation of the UPL's notice provisions is irrelevant to the issue of the Controller's immunity]; Harris v. Westly, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 224 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 [the immunity conferred upon the C | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hustedt v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences2003Citing Hustedt v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 329, 343 , 178 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 636 P.2d 1139 , [15] the Board argues that application of the statutes and other provisions at issue would make it impossible to realize the objectives of Art. 2003Citing Hustedt v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 329, 343 , 178 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 636 P.2d 1139 , [15] the Board argues that application of the statutes and other provisions at issue would make it impossible to realize the objectives of Art. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Farley v. Cory
green
1 sentence1985Following the issuance of the opinion in Farley v. Cory, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 583 , in 1978, taxpayers served Bank as a Doe defendant and moved for consolidation of cases No. 250500 and No. 257509. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Potter v. United States
green
1 sentence1970(See Phinney v. Kay (5th Cir. 1960) 275 F.2d 776, 777, 780-781 ; Potter v. United States, 269 F.Supp. 545, 550 .) From the cases cited in the Controller’s brief and from our own research, it appears that there is no significant dissent in the federal cases from this conclusion. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Stewart v. State of California
green
2 sentences1970While, as we analogize further, this need not have been the position of the Controller, we accepted that as a fact in treating with the estate subject to inheritance tax, and we do so herein, again calling attention to footnote 9 in the earlier opinion: "We do not here determine whether the State Controller may seek reopening for the purpose of revising the inheritance tax in Cepha's case upon the theory that there was concealed from him the agreement here imposing a constructive trust upon the property passing to Robert from Cepha's estate." The Controller sought, unsuccessfully, to impose a 1970While, as we analogize further, this need not have been the position of the Controller, we accepted that as a fact in treating with the estate subject to inheritance tax, and we do so herein, again calling attention to footnote 9 in the earlier opinion: "We do not here determine whether the State Controller may seek reopening for the purpose of revising the inheritance tax in Cepha's case upon the theory that there was concealed from him the agreement here imposing a constructive trust upon the property passing to Robert from Cepha's estate." The Controller sought, unsuccessfully, to impose a | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.