12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maguire v. Colliergreen1 sentence2013(Cf. Maguire v. Collier (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 309, 314 [court erred in dismissing action under mandatory provisions; declining to find court dismissed action on its own motion under discretionary dismissal statute, where nothing in the record suggested it did so].) The trial court had express authority to do so under section 583.360, subdivision (a). | 1 | 1 |
Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Womengreen2 sentences2005(Griffith Co. v. San Diego Col. for Women (1955) 45 Cal.2d 501, 508 [ 289 P.2d 476 ] (Griffith Co.); Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 508, fn. 3 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ].) Therefore, even if the APG parties’ evidentiary showing might have supported application of the Fidelity waiver rule (an issue we do not reach), the trial court’s rejection of the evidence precludes an appellate finding of waiver. 8 V. 2005(Griffith Co. v. San Diego Col. for Women (1955) 45 Cal.2d 501, 508 [ 289 P.2d 476 ] (Griffith Co.); Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 508, fn. 3 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ].) Therefore, even if the APG parties’ evidentiary showing might have supported application of the Fidelity waiver rule (an issue we do not reach), the trial court’s rejection of the evidence precludes an appellate finding of waiver. 8 V. | 1 | 1 |
Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc.green2 sentences2005(See Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ]; Young v. Three For One Oil Royalties (1934) 1 Cal.2d 639, 647-648 [ 36 P.2d 1065 ].) Finally, even if the Fidelity waiver rule is a proper predicate for preemption deriving from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, and even if it were material to this appeal, it could have no greater preemptive effect than section 10(a)(2) itself. 2005(See Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ]; Young v. Three For One Oil Royalties (1934) 1 Cal.2d 639, 647-648 [ 36 P.2d 1065 ].) Finally, even if the Fidelity waiver rule is a proper predicate for preemption deriving from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, and even if it were material to this appeal, it could have no greater preemptive effect than section 10(a)(2) itself. | 1 | 1 |
Enyart v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2005(Griffith Co. v. San Diego Col. for Women (1955) 45 Cal.2d 501, 508 [ 289 P.2d 476 ] (Griffith Co.); Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 508, fn. 3 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ].) Therefore, even if the APG parties’ evidentiary showing might have supported application of the Fidelity waiver rule (an issue we do not reach), the trial court’s rejection of the evidence precludes an appellate finding of waiver. 8 V. 2005(Griffith Co. v. San Diego Col. for Women (1955) 45 Cal.2d 501, 508 [ 289 P.2d 476 ] (Griffith Co.); Enyart v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 499, 508, fn. 3 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ].) Therefore, even if the APG parties’ evidentiary showing might have supported application of the Fidelity waiver rule (an issue we do not reach), the trial court’s rejection of the evidence precludes an appellate finding of waiver. 8 V. | 1 | 1 |
Siegel v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2005Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1290-1291 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ] (Siegel).) Moreover, as the Fidelity opinion notes, “[s]everal federal courts hold that a party’s failure to object to the real or evident partiality of an arbitrator before an award is issued does not waive the challenge unless the *850 party had real, actual knowledge of the conflict.” (Fidelity, supra, 386 F.3d at p. 1313, italics added.) Thus, even if the Fidelity rule of waiver based on constructive knowledge derives from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, the rule is not a universally accepted principle. 2005Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1290-1291 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ] (Siegel).) Moreover, as the Fidelity opinion notes, “[s]everal federal courts hold that a party’s failure to object to the real or evident partiality of an arbitrator before an award is issued does not waive the challenge unless the *850 party had real, actual knowledge of the conflict.” (Fidelity, supra, 386 F.3d at p. 1313, italics added.) Thus, even if the Fidelity rule of waiver based on constructive knowledge derives from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, the rule is not a universally accepted principle. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Three for One Oil Royaltiesgreen2 sentences2005(See Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ]; Young v. Three For One Oil Royalties (1934) 1 Cal.2d 639, 647-648 [ 36 P.2d 1065 ].) Finally, even if the Fidelity waiver rule is a proper predicate for preemption deriving from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, and even if it were material to this appeal, it could have no greater preemptive effect than section 10(a)(2) itself. 2005(See Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ]; Young v. Three For One Oil Royalties (1934) 1 Cal.2d 639, 647-648 [ 36 P.2d 1065 ].) Finally, even if the Fidelity waiver rule is a proper predicate for preemption deriving from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, and even if it were material to this appeal, it could have no greater preemptive effect than section 10(a)(2) itself. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 788133green2 sentences2005Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1290-1291 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ] (Siegel).) Moreover, as the Fidelity opinion notes, “[s]everal federal courts hold that a party’s failure to object to the real or evident partiality of an arbitrator before an award is issued does not waive the challenge unless the *850 party had real, actual knowledge of the conflict.” (Fidelity, supra, 386 F.3d at p. 1313, italics added.) Thus, even if the Fidelity rule of waiver based on constructive knowledge derives from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, the rule is not a universally accepted principle. 2005Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1290-1291 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ] (Siegel).) Moreover, as the Fidelity opinion notes, “[s]everal federal courts hold that a party’s failure to object to the real or evident partiality of an arbitrator before an award is issued does not waive the challenge unless the *850 party had real, actual knowledge of the conflict.” (Fidelity, supra, 386 F.3d at p. 1313, italics added.) Thus, even if the Fidelity rule of waiver based on constructive knowledge derives from section 10(a)(2) of the FAA, the rule is not a universally accepted principle. | 1 | 1 |
Soto v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences1999However, we review the ruling, not its rationale, and affirm if the summary judgment is correct, regardless of the rationale articulated by the trial court, (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Soto v. State of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 196, 199 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ].) 8 Appellant quotes Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, 64-65 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 785 ] as holding that “[a]n escrow holder has a fiduciary duty ‘to communicate to his principal knowledge acquired in the course of his agency with respect to materi 1999However, we review the ruling, not its rationale, and affirm if the summary judgment is correct, regardless of the rationale articulated by the trial court, (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Soto v. State of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 196, 199 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ].) 8 Appellant quotes Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, 64-65 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 785 ] as holding that “[a]n escrow holder has a fiduciary duty ‘to communicate to his principal knowledge acquired in the course of his agency with respect to materi | 1 | 1 |
Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co.green2 sentences1999However, we review the ruling, not its rationale, and affirm if the summary judgment is correct, regardless of the rationale articulated by the trial court, (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Soto v. State of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 196, 199 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ].) 8 Appellant quotes Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, 64-65 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 785 ] as holding that “[a]n escrow holder has a fiduciary duty ‘to communicate to his principal knowledge acquired in the course of his agency with respect to materi 1999However, we review the ruling, not its rationale, and affirm if the summary judgment is correct, regardless of the rationale articulated by the trial court, (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Soto v. State of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 196, 199 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ].) 8 Appellant quotes Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, 64-65 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 785 ] as holding that “[a]n escrow holder has a fiduciary duty ‘to communicate to his principal knowledge acquired in the course of his agency with respect to materi | 1 | 1 |
City of Hope National Medical Center v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1999Medical Center v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 633, 639 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 465 ].) 7 Appellant argues the court did not rely on section 18100 to grant Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment. 1999Medical Center v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 633, 639 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 465 ].) 7 Appellant argues the court did not rely on section 18100 to grant Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co.green2 sentences1999However, we review the ruling, not its rationale, and affirm if the summary judgment is correct, regardless of the rationale articulated by the trial court, (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Soto v. State of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 196, 199 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ].) 8 Appellant quotes Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, 64-65 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 785 ] as holding that “[a]n escrow holder has a fiduciary duty ‘to communicate to his principal knowledge acquired in the course of his agency with respect to materi 1999However, we review the ruling, not its rationale, and affirm if the summary judgment is correct, regardless of the rationale articulated by the trial court, (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ]; Soto v. State of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 196, 199 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ].) 8 Appellant quotes Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, 64-65 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 785 ] as holding that “[a]n escrow holder has a fiduciary duty ‘to communicate to his principal knowledge acquired in the course of his agency with respect to materi | 1 | 1 |
| Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Siegel v. American Savings & Loan Assn.green | 1 | 1 |
Garber v. Gianellagreen2 sentences1998(Bell v. Pleasant, supra, 145 Cal. 410, 414-415 ; Garber v. Gianella (1893) 98 Cal. 527, 529-530 [ 33 P. 458 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:28, pp. 52-53.)” (Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulman (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 356, 366, fn. 6 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Showing that Alliance was not an innocent purchaser for value was hence an element of First Fidelity’s claim. 1998(Bell v. Pleasant, supra, 145 Cal. 410, 414-415 ; Garber v. Gianella (1893) 98 Cal. 527, 529-530 [ 33 P. 458 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:28, pp. 52-53.)” (Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulman (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 356, 366, fn. 6 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Showing that Alliance was not an innocent purchaser for value was hence an element of First Fidelity’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2025(See Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 275 , 281–282.) Here, the trial court expressly relied on Emergency Rule 5 to deny Fidelity’s motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bail bond. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Havstad v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2021Co., supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 654 , 661–662.) It follows that the trial court correctly granted Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment, even though its rationale differed in some respects from ours. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Swift Distribution, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287 .) A. Fidelity’s Showing as Moving Party Here, Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment on the ground it had no duty to defend Hiyama’s lawsuit was based on the material allegations and relief sought in Hiyama’s third amended complaint as compared with the language of the policy. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation District
green
2 sentences2018Generally, trial court error is waived by implication or deemed forfeited when the appellant fails to bring the alleged error to the trial court's attention by timely motion or objection. ( Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist . (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180 , 184-185, fn. 1, 151 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 588 P.2d 1261 ; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 , 826, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 .) Fidelity responds that it did not forfeit its immunity defense as to any of Plaintiffs' theories of liability. 2018Generally, trial court error is waived by implication or deemed forfeited when the appellant fails to bring the alleged error to the trial court's attention by timely motion or objection. ( Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist . (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180 , 184-185, fn. 1, 151 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 588 P.2d 1261 ; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 , 826, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 .) Fidelity responds that it did not forfeit its immunity defense as to any of Plaintiffs' theories of liability. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke
green
2 sentences2018Generally, trial court error is waived by implication or deemed forfeited when the appellant fails to bring the alleged error to the trial court's attention by timely motion or objection. ( Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist . (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180 , 184-185, fn. 1, 151 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 588 P.2d 1261 ; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 , 826, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 .) Fidelity responds that it did not forfeit its immunity defense as to any of Plaintiffs' theories of liability. 2018Generally, trial court error is waived by implication or deemed forfeited when the appellant fails to bring the alleged error to the trial court's attention by timely motion or objection. ( Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist . (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180 , 184-185, fn. 1, 151 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 588 P.2d 1261 ; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 , 826, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 .) Fidelity responds that it did not forfeit its immunity defense as to any of Plaintiffs' theories of liability. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Merced County Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Cardella
green
2 sentences2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) 2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re St. John
green
1 sentence2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Purdy v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) 2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa CA4/2
green
2 sentences2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) 2018A. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 "[A] party seeking an award of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees must first be determined to be 'a successful party.' [Citation.] A necessary prerequisite to recovery under the statute is the status of the prevailing party. [Citation.] The terms 'prevailing party' and 'successful party' are synonymous. ( Graham v.DaimlerChrysler Corp . (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 , 570, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ....)" ( Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa (2015) | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bankers Insurance
green
1 sentence2017Co., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 6 .) DISPOSITION The order denying Fidelity’s motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond and the summary judgment on the bond are affirmed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Marriage of Herr
green
1 sentence2013The Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in denying her motion for reconsideration because she presented new circumstances showing the action should not be dismissed as to any defendants except the Fidelity defendants.11 Under section 1008, “[a] motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law [citation], and facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different.’ [Citation.] In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer th | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Markowitz v. Fidelity National Title Co.
green
2 sentences2013“The plain language of the statute imposes no obligations on an escrow holder whose role it is to facilitate the exchange of documents between the beneficiary and the trustee, or to record the reconveyance on behalf of the trustee.” (Markowitz, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 523 .) 14 DISPOSITION Treating the superior court’s February 18, 2011, order granting Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment as a judgment in favor of Fidelity and against TSF, we affirm. 2013“The plain language of the statute imposes no obligations on an escrow holder whose role it is to facilitate the exchange of documents between the beneficiary and the trustee, or to record the reconveyance on behalf of the trustee.” (Markowitz, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 523 .) 14 DISPOSITION Treating the superior court’s February 18, 2011, order granting Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment as a judgment in favor of Fidelity and against TSF, we affirm. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
green
1 sentence2013(See Cahill, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 957 .) The trial court granted Fidelity's motion to strike because it was not filed in conformity with the court's earlier order providing leave to amend. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Zhang v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013The Zhang court noted only that if the plaintiff wanted "to attempt to recover on behalf of other insureds, she would be required to certify a class action." (Zhang, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 383 .) The court stressed that it was "not concerned at the pleading stage as to how [the plaintiff] might go about proving her claim" and "the possible difficulty of proving the plaintiff's allegations is not a relevant consideration on review of a demurrer ruling." (Ibid.) In sum, the trial court erred in granting Fidelity's motion for judgment on the pleadings (with leave to amend) with respect to the UC | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mellinger v. Ticor Title Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2002Co. of California (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 691 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 357 ] [where the question was whether an encroachment affected the marketability of title].) 5 Fidelity’s motion was properly granted. 2002Co. of California (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 691 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 357 ] [where the question was whether an encroachment affected the marketability of title].) 5 Fidelity’s motion was properly granted. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Firato v. Tuttle
green
1 sentence1998(Firato v. Tuttle, supra, 48 Cal.2d 136, 138 .) In its moving summary judgment papers, Alliance presented evidence that it had no knowledge that First Fidelity had a claim (i.e. no knowledge that First Fidelity had reconveyed in error). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bell v. Pleasant
green
1 sentence1998(Bell v. Pleasant, supra, 145 Cal. 410, 414-415 ; Garber v. Gianella (1893) 98 Cal. 527, 529-530 [ 33 P. 458 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:28, pp. 52-53.)” (Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulman (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 356, 366, fn. 6 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Showing that Alliance was not an innocent purchaser for value was hence an element of First Fidelity’s claim. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich Insurance green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.