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 1 courts 1940–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Domino v. Mobleygreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that 2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that | 3 | 3 |
Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.green2 sentences2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that 2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that | 2 | 2 |
Starr v. Davisgreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that 2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that | 2 | 2 |
Owens v. Palos Verdes Monacogreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that 2023(See, e.g., Owens v. Palos Verdes Monaco (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 855, 863, fn. 5 , disapproved of on other grounds by Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [mistake in identification of seller warranted remedy of reformation]; Domino v. Mobley (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 24, 29 [typographical error regarding amount of note in an escrow instruction contract did not invalidate contract when uncertainty could be resolved by extrinsic evidence]; Starr v. Davis (1930) 105 Cal.App. 632, 636-637 [seller of business, who had ongoing obligation to advertiser that | 2 | 2 |
Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulmangreen2 sentences1999“The constructive notice imparted by the recording of *533 a document has been extended to charge an intending purchaser [or encumbrancer] with a duty to investigate the rights afforded by an unrecorded document referred to in that recorded document.” (Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulman (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 356, 365 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Accordingly, we must determine whether these two documents—the recorded “collateral assignment” and the escrow instruction identifying the assignment of the Greenwood deed of trust as “collaterally assigned . . . securing a loan”—placed upon the Frisones a duty to i 1999“The constructive notice imparted by the recording of *533 a document has been extended to charge an intending purchaser [or encumbrancer] with a duty to investigate the rights afforded by an unrecorded document referred to in that recorded document.” (Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulman (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 356, 365 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Accordingly, we must determine whether these two documents—the recorded “collateral assignment” and the escrow instruction identifying the assignment of the Greenwood deed of trust as “collaterally assigned . . . securing a loan”—placed upon the Frisones a duty to i | 1 | 1 |
Burrow v. Timmsengreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Dryergreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Spellman v. Dixongreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Roven v. Millergreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Middlebrook-Anderson Co. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Stockwell v. Lindemangreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Magna Development Co. v. Reedgreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Kessler v. Sappgreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Gould v. Callangreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Rodomgreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Gluskin v. Atlantic Savings & Loan Assn.green2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Krasley v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Bruggeman v. Sokolgreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
White Point Co. v. Herringtongreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Butcher v. Dauzgreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Handy v. Gordongreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
Loeb v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1 |
| Janisse v. Winston Investment Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wheeler v. Superior Mortgage Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Charlotte Guyer & Associates v. Franklin Factorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lemoge Electric v. County of San Mateogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harding v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC
green
2 sentences2023Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23 (Kalnoki) supports this conclusion. 2023Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23 (Kalnoki) supports this conclusion. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Taheri Law Group v. Evans
green
1 sentence2023Section 425.16, subdivision (b), requires the trial court to consider plaintiff’s affidavits for the purpose of determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate a prima facie case. “ ‘In making this judgment, the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s opposing affidavits does not permit a weighing of them against plaintiff’s supporting evidence, but only a determination that they do not, as a matter of law, defeat that evidence.’ ” (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 867 , original italics.) Shang need only show tha | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Section 425.16, subdivision (b), requires the trial court to consider plaintiff’s affidavits for the purpose of determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate a prima facie case. “ ‘In making this judgment, the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s opposing affidavits does not permit a weighing of them against plaintiff’s supporting evidence, but only a determination that they do not, as a matter of law, defeat that evidence.’ ” (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 867 , original italics.) Shang need only show tha | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.
red
1 sentence2023Section 425.16, subdivision (b), requires the trial court to consider plaintiff’s affidavits for the purpose of determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate a prima facie case. “ ‘In making this judgment, the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s opposing affidavits does not permit a weighing of them against plaintiff’s supporting evidence, but only a determination that they do not, as a matter of law, defeat that evidence.’ ” (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 867 , original italics.) Shang need only show tha | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co.
green
1 sentence2015Relying on Summit Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705 (Summit Financial), they argued an escrow agent's fiduciary duty to the buyers and sellers of property was limited to following the buyer's and seller's escrow instructions; it did not extend to following the lenders' closing instructions, to which the buyers and sellers were not a party. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co.
green
1 sentence1988(Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co., supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 435 .) *757 Wasmann foregoes the contract claim and alleges negligence in Seidenberg’s handling of the deed. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Conley v. Fate
green
2 sentences1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 1982However, Buyers’ loan application to the existing lender, Santa Fe Federal Savings, was approved, and there was no problem of a prepayment penalty. 4 Certain other terms to be included in the second trust deed were also specified. 5 Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 430-431 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 629 ]; Spellman v. Dixon (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 1, 3-4 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 668 ]; Magna Development Co. v. Reed (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 230, 236-237 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 284 ]; Kessler v. Sapp (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 818, 823 [ 338 P.2d 34 ]; Roven v. Miller (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 391, 398 [ 335 P.2d 1035 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Benard v. Walkup
green
1 sentence1970The later case of Benard v. Walkup (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 595 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 544 ], is consistent with what we have said here. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Franklin v. Killilea neutral | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Forcum v. Brown green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.
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.