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 1997–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Emeryville v. Cohengreen2 sentences2017Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222 , 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ( Moyer ); see Emeryville , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 ; see also Civ. 2017Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222 , 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ( Moyer ); see Emeryville , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 ; see also Civ. | 4 | 4 |
Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2017Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222 , 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ( Moyer ); see Emeryville , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 ; see also Civ. 2017Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222 , 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ( Moyer ); see Emeryville , supra , 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 ; see also Civ. | 3 | 4 |
Nickelsberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2025Appeals Bd. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 288, 298 [“[T]he rule of liberal construction stated in section 3202 should not be used to defeat the overall statutory framework and fundamental rules of statutory construction.”].) It is, moreover, worth remembering that the interpretive question we address here has implications that extend beyond the context of section 4553 premiums for serious and willful employer misconduct. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hensongreen1 sentence2022In particular, it dismissed the wording of section 739 as unilluminating, citing the general interpretive principle that “ ‘the singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular.’ ” (Henson, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 511, fn. 13 , quoting Pen. | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.green1 sentence2021(Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 844 (Myers).) The Court of Appeal presupposed that applying sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 to McHugh’s policy was, in fact, retroactive for purposes of applying the presumption against retroactivity. | 1 | 1 |
Strauss v. Hortongreen1 sentence2010(See Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364, 470 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 , 207 P.3d 48 ].) But we must first ask, on what event does this statute operate? *1414 The assessment is “imposed on every conviction” as defined. (§ 70373, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant’s 2009 conviction occurred after the statute’s effective date. | 1 | 1 |
Winet v. Pricegreen2 sentences1997(Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 554 ] [subjective understanding of contractual language not competent parol evidence].) Indeed, the admissibility of an insurance agent’s interpretation of a policy appears inconsistent with the general interpretive rule that policy language is ordinarily given the construction accorded by a layperson rather than the construction accorded by an insurance expert. 1997(Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 554 ] [subjective understanding of contractual language not competent parol evidence].) Indeed, the admissibility of an insurance agent’s interpretation of a policy appears inconsistent with the general interpretive rule that policy language is ordinarily given the construction accorded by a layperson rather than the construction accorded by an insurance expert. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zellerino v. Brown
green
2 sentences2017Moreover, the Department ... has repeatedly contended that other provisions of ... section 34171, subdivision (d)(2) operate retroactively to bar repayment of various City-RDA agreements. [Citations.] In the face of an express legislative expansion of 'enforceable obligation,' the Department offers no plausible reading of the new language that can limit it to prospective operation." The City's position accords with a general interpretive rule: " ' "If possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose[ ]" [citation] 2017Moreover, the Department ... has repeatedly contended that other provisions of ... section 34171, subdivision (d)(2) operate retroactively to bar repayment of various City-RDA agreements. [Citations.] In the face of an express legislative expansion of 'enforceable obligation,' the Department offers no plausible reading of the new language that can limit it to prospective operation." The City's position accords with a general interpretive rule: " ' "If possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose[ ]" [citation] | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Larkin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2025But as we have long made clear, the general interpretive principle in section 3202 will not “justify an otherwise erroneous construction.” (Larkin, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 167 ; see Nickelsberg v. Workers’ Comp. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship
green
1 sentence2025(See Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 464 ; Moustafa v. Board of Registered Nursing (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1131-1132 .) To the contrary, other provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code support the conclusion that the Legislature generally does not differentiate between the singular and plural when enacting APA exemptions. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Moustafa v. Bd. of Registered Nursing
green
1 sentence2025(See Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 464 ; Moustafa v. Board of Registered Nursing (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1131-1132 .) To the contrary, other provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code support the conclusion that the Legislature generally does not differentiate between the singular and plural when enacting APA exemptions. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore
green
1 sentence2020(Mathews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 771 ; Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 22 .) HUD has confirmed this understanding in an amicus curiae brief, arguing that it intended the regulation to reach only state payments that reimburse a family’s expenditures. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mathews v. Becerra
green
1 sentence2020(Mathews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 771 ; Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 22 .) HUD has confirmed this understanding in an amicus curiae brief, arguing that it intended the regulation to reach only state payments that reimburse a family’s expenditures. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2020It is an elementary principle of statutory interpretation that “ ‘[a]n interpretation that renders statutory language a nullity is obviously to be avoided.’ ” (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1039 .) The majority’s expansive approach also defies the general interpretive principle that exceptions to a statute are to be construed narrowly. | 1 | 2020–2020 |