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.
11 California opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp.green2 sentences2018Generally, "judicial decisions are given retroactive effect." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973 , 978, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ( Newman ).) But the rule of retroactivity is not "absolute." ( Ibid. ) "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Id. at p. 983, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 .) In their 2018Generally, "judicial decisions are given retroactive effect." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973 , 978, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ( Newman ).) But the rule of retroactivity is not "absolute." ( Ibid. ) "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Id. at p. 983, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 .) In their | 5 | 8 |
In Re Retirement Casesgreen2 sentences2018Generally, "judicial decisions are given retroactive effect." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973 , 978, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ( Newman ).) But the rule of retroactivity is not "absolute." ( Ibid. ) "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Id. at p. 983, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 .) In their 2018Generally, "judicial decisions are given retroactive effect." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973 , 978, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ( Newman ).) But the rule of retroactivity is not "absolute." ( Ibid. ) "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Id. at p. 983, 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 .) In their | 2 | 3 |
Laird v. Blackergreen2 sentences2015In other words, courts have looked to the “hardships” imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.’ ” (Laird v. Blacker (1992) 2 Cal.4th 606, 620 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 , 828 P.2d 691 ].) *91 There is nothing in this case that makes it unusual. 2015In other words, courts have looked to the “hardships” imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.’ ” (Laird v. Blacker (1992) 2 Cal.4th 606, 620 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 , 828 P.2d 691 ].) *91 There is nothing in this case that makes it unusual. | 1 | 1 |
Propst v. Stillmangreen2 sentences1998Appeals Bd., supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 688 ; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 45 ; Estate of Propst, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 462 ; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) The Supreme Court has held: "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d 1998Appeals Bd., supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 688 ; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 45 ; Estate of Propst, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 462; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) The Supreme Court has held: “A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law.” (Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d a | 1 | 1 |
Evangelatos v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1993(Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) We also noted that the only exceptions to that rule, even when the judicial decision changes existing law, are when retroactive application “would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law.” (Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 983 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) We concluded that there were no such concerns 1993(Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 ].) We also noted that the only exceptions to that rule, even when the judicial decision changes existing law, are when retroactive application “would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law.” (Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 983 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) We concluded that there were no such concerns | 1 | 1 |
Kreisher v. Mobil Oil Corp.green2 sentences1989In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (See Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 152-153 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ]; Kreisher v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 389, 399 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 662 ].) With these factors in mind we consider whether the decisions in Pilot Life and Commercial Life should be applied retroactively. 1989In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (See Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 152-153 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ]; Kreisher v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 389, 399 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 662 ].) With these factors in mind we consider whether the decisions in Pilot Life and Commercial Life should be applied retroactively. | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1989In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (See Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 152-153 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ]; Kreisher v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 389, 399 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 662 ].) With these factors in mind we consider whether the decisions in Pilot Life and Commercial Life should be applied retroactively. 1989In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” (See Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 152-153 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ]; Kreisher v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 389, 399 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 662 ].) With these factors in mind we consider whether the decisions in Pilot Life and Commercial Life should be applied retroactively. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gentis v. Safeguard Business Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Court opinions are different from legislation because courts declare law rather than make law. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 978, p. 1029.) Nevertheless, a similar rule applies to court opinions, as follows: "The rule that judicial decisions are generally applied retroactively is well established. [Citations.] The rule is `basic in our legal tradition.' [Citations.] However, the rule is not absolute. [Citations.] It is subject to two narrow exceptions, based on considerations of fairness and public policy. [Citations.] The Supreme Court has held: `A court may decline to fo 2007Court opinions are different from legislation because courts declare law rather than make law. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 978, p. 1029.) Nevertheless, a similar rule applies to court opinions, as follows: "The rule that judicial decisions are generally applied retroactively is well established. [Citations.] The rule is `basic in our legal tradition.' [Citations.] However, the rule is not absolute. [Citations.] It is subject to two narrow exceptions, based on considerations of fairness and public policy. [Citations.] The Supreme Court has held: `A court may decline to fo | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross
green
2 sentences1998Appeals Bd., supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 688 ; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 45 ; Estate of Propst, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 462 ; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) The Supreme Court has held: "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d 1998Appeals Bd., supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 688 ; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 45 ; Estate of Propst, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 462 ; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) The Supreme Court has held: "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Camper v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences1998Appeals Bd., supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 688 ; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 45 ; Estate of Propst, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 462 ; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) The Supreme Court has held: "A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law." ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d 1998Appeals Bd., supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 688 ; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 45 ; Estate of Propst, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 462; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 983 .) The Supreme Court has held: “A court may decline to follow the standard rule when retroactive application of a decision would raise substantial concerns about the effects of the new rule on the general administration of justice, or would unfairly undermine the reasonable reliance of parties on the previously existing state of the law.” (Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d a | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.
green
2 sentences1993In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” {Id., at p. 983.) Applying these principles, the Supreme Court in Newman held that Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ], applies retroactively. 2 (Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 976 .) It based its holding on the following factors: (1) Foley did not overrule a prior Supreme Court decision; (2) the doctrine that Foley ove 1993In other words, courts have looked to the ‘hardships’ imposed on parties by full retroactivity, permitting an exception only when the circumstances of a case draw it apart from the usual run of cases.” {Id., at p. 983.) Applying these principles, the Supreme Court in Newman held that Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ], applies retroactively. 2 (Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 976 .) It based its holding on the following factors: (1) Foley did not overrule a prior Supreme Court decision; (2) the doctrine that Foley ove | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Chin v. Meier
green
1 sentence1992We give full retroactive effect to Chin v. Meier, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d 1473 . *403 The judgment of dismissal is reversed. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.