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 2006–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2023(County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 [when a plaintiff chooses to stand on his or her pleading and not amend after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, “an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer. [Citation.] On the other hand, where the plaintiff chooses to amend, any error in the sustaining of the demurrer is ordinarily waived.”].) In reviewing a demurrer order, we independently evaluate the challenged pleading, construing it liberally, giving it a reasonable inte 2021(Ibid.) “When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer. [Citation.] On the other hand, where the plaintiff chooses to amend, any error in the sustaining of the demurrer is ordinarily waived.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 .) In the present case, Brown chose neither to stand on the allegations of the second amended complaint nor to amend them. | 6 | 10 |
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 ], citing Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 703 [ 128 P.2d 357 ].) “ ‘ “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order for the bar ... to be ra 2015II. ―When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.‖ (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 5 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 , citing Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 703 .) ― ‗ ―A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order for the bar . . . to be raised by demurrer, the defect m | 2 | 2 |
Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2015“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 ], citing Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 703 [ 128 P.2d 357 ].) “ ‘ “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order for the bar ... to be ra 2015“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 ], citing Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 703 [ 128 P.2d 357 ].) “ ‘ “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order for the bar ... to be ra | 1 | 1 |
Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Huntgreen2 sentences2015(Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 387 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 , 212 P.3d 736 ].) In doing so, “ ‘our fundamental task is “to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” . . . 2015(Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 387 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 , 212 P.3d 736 ].) In doing so, “ ‘our fundamental task is “to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Altramano v. Rodeo Del Legionarro, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 ], citing Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 703 [ 128 P.2d 357 ].) “ ‘ “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order for the bar ... to be ra 2006Proc., § 906, italics added.) When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer. ( Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 703 , 128 P.2d 357 .) On the other hand, where the plaintiff chooses to amend, any error in the sustaining of the demurrer is ordinarily waived. ( Chicago Title Ins. | 2 | 2006–2015 |
Milligan v. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE DIST.
green
1 sentence2023(Milligan v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1 , 5–6 (Milligan).) We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but we do not assume the accuracy of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lee v. Hanley
green
1 sentence2021Plaintiff never did, even though he filed two subsequent amended complaints. “ ‘When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.’ ” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1232 , italics added.) The same rule should apply here, where seeking amendment was not foreclosed and the court expressly raised the possibility of amendment pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, but plaintiff did not att | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 .) 8 On appeal, “we examine the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415 .) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts pro | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service
green
1 sentence2015“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 .) 8 On appeal, “we examine the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415 .) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts pro | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re SC
green
1 sentence2014“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer. [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 .) On the other hand, the Forts’ only argument as to why the general demurrer was improperly sustained is that the substituted trustee lacked standing to foreclose, in that (1) the substitution violated the applicable pooling and servicing agreement (see Glaski v | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Glaski v. Bank of America CA5
green
1 sentence2014“When a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, and the plaintiff chooses not to amend but to stand on the complaint, an appeal from the ensuing dismissal order may challenge the validity of the intermediate ruling sustaining the demurrer. [Citation.]” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 312 .) On the other hand, the Forts’ only argument as to why the general demurrer was improperly sustained is that the substituted trustee lacked standing to foreclose, in that (1) the substitution violated the applicable pooling and servicing agreement (see Glaski v | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum
green
2 sentences2006Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 311 , 70 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 444 P.2d 481 ; Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 750, 752 , 195 P.2d 492 .) Here, the order sustaining the demurrer to the class plaintiffs' public nuisance cause of action in the second amended complaint with leave to amend involved the merits of the cause of action and was not directly appealable. 2006Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 311 , 70 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 444 P.2d 481 ; Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 750, 752 , 195 P.2d 492 .) Here, the order sustaining the demurrer to the class plaintiffs' public nuisance cause of action in the second amended complaint with leave to amend involved the merits of the cause of action and was not directly appealable. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Chicago Title Insurance v. Great Western Financial Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 311 , 70 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 444 P.2d 481 ; Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 750, 752 , 195 P.2d 492 .) Here, the order sustaining the demurrer to the class plaintiffs' public nuisance cause of action in the second amended complaint with leave to amend involved the merits of the cause of action and was not directly appealable. 2006Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 311 , 70 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 444 P.2d 481 ; Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 750, 752 , 195 P.2d 492 .) Here, the order sustaining the demurrer to the class plaintiffs' public nuisance cause of action in the second amended complaint with leave to amend involved the merits of the cause of action and was not directly appealable. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.