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 1 courts 1992–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Borengreen2 sentences2022(Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 [“It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. 2021(Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 [“It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. | 6 | 7 |
Colony Insurance v. Crusader Insurancegreen2 sentences2022Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 743, 750 [“A statement of decision . . . covers only issues litigated in the case”].) Nor is this court. “ ‘It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried.’ [Citation.]” (Colony, at p. 751.) A motion for a new trial is also not a vehicle to preserve new theories for appeal. 2016Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 743, 751 [“‘[i]t is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried’”]; Adoption of Mathew B. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1239, 1259 [court’s failure to address issue in statement of decision was explained by party’s failure to raise it; it was improper to raise it for first time on appeal].) Zhang’s argument also fails on its merits. | 2 | 2 |
Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Am. Safety Indem. Co.green1 sentence2022(See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 898, 922 [“New theories that could have been raised, but were not, is not one of the causes that permits a new trial”]; Green v. Healthcare Services, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 407 , 419 [“ ‘Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider . . . . | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Broderickgreen1 sentence2020(See In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 501 [permitting a party to adopt a new and different theory on appeal is unfair to the trial court, and “ ‘manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant’ ”].) Because mother failed to raise the issue of the domestic violence presumption under section 3044 below, she forfeited the argument. | 1 | 1 |
Nancy B. v. Charlotte M.green1 sentence2016Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 743, 751 [“‘[i]t is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried’”]; Adoption of Mathew B. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1239, 1259 [court’s failure to address issue in statement of decision was explained by party’s failure to raise it; it was improper to raise it for first time on appeal].) Zhang’s argument also fails on its merits. | 1 | 1 |
Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation Districtred1 sentence2015(See Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1 ; Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 ["It is a firmly entrenched principle of 7 appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. Nortongreen2 sentences2014In short, a party may not play a game of ‘“Heads I win, Tails you lose” with the trial court.’ (Tyler v. Norton (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 717, 722 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 307 ].)” Finally, Lansdale and Financial Corporation are barred from raising the voidability defenses on appeal under the theory of the case doctrine. “‘It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. 2014In short, a party may not play a game of ‘“Heads I win, Tails you lose” with the trial court.’ (Tyler v. Norton (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 717, 722 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 307 ].)” Finally, Lansdale and Financial Corporation are barred from raising the voidability defenses on appeal under the theory of the case doctrine. “‘It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. | 1 | 1 |
Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.green2 sentences2011To permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant.’ [Citations.]” (Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1351, fn. 12 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 , 190 P.3d 586 ]; see also Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [“It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. 2011To permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant.’ [Citations.]” (Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1351, fn. 12 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 , 190 P.3d 586 ]; see also Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [“It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. | 1 | 1 |
Chelini v. Nierigreen2 sentences1992(See, e.g., Chelini v. *804 Nieri (1948) 32 Cal.2d 480, 481-482 [ 196 P.2d 915 ].) If the California Supreme Court intended to disapprove this firmly entrenched principle of contract law, it would have done so expressly. 1992(See, e.g., Chelini v. *804 Nieri (1948) 32 Cal.2d 480, 481-482 [ 196 P.2d 915 ].) If the California Supreme Court intended to disapprove this firmly entrenched principle of contract law, it would have done so expressly. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Healthcare Services
green
1 sentence2022(See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 898, 922 [“New theories that could have been raised, but were not, is not one of the causes that permits a new trial”]; Green v. Healthcare Services, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 407 , 419 [“ ‘Appellate courts are loath to reverse a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider . . . . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Ass'n v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2014Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory.’” (Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 .) The record demonstrates that throughout the pleading and pretrial stages, Lansdale and Financial Corporation adhered to the theory that no payment obligation had accrued under the 2005 letter agreement because certain contingencies had not occurred and they strategically avoided any reliance on the voidability defenses. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.