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 2 courts 1944–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Currygreen2 sentences1969(E.g., People v. Curry, 62 Cal.2d 207, 212 [ 42 Cal. Rptr. 17 , 397 P.2d 1009 ]; People v. Davis, supra, at p. 809 .) [8] Having adopted the referee's finding in the present case that, because of somewhat unusual circumstances, petitioner was not aware of his appeal rights during the 10-day period following his sentencing, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief under rule 31(a) because his failure to file a timely notice of appeal was due to ignorance of his appeal rights. [9] The referee correctly found that under the peculiar facts of this case petitioner is not estopped from obtainin 1969(E.g., People v. Curry, 62 Cal.2d 207, 212 [ 42 Cal. Rptr. 17 , 397 P.2d 1009 ]; People v. Davis, supra, at p. 809 .) [8] Having adopted the referee's finding in the present case that, because of somewhat unusual circumstances, petitioner was not aware of his appeal rights during the 10-day period following his sentencing, we hold that petitioner is entitled to relief under rule 31(a) because his failure to file a timely notice of appeal was due to ignorance of his appeal rights. [9] The referee correctly found that under the peculiar facts of this case petitioner is not estopped from obtainin | 1 | 2 |
Viles v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences1967(Viles v. State of California, 66 Cal.2d 24, 33 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d 818 ].) In a proper case a public entity may be estopped to assert the failure of a claimant to present a claim, or to present it within time, to avoid liability upon a cause of action conditioned upon the prescribed presentation of a claim. 1967(Viles v. State of California, 66 Cal.2d 24, 33 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d 818 ].) In a proper case a public entity may be estopped to assert the failure of a claimant to present a claim, or to present it within time, to avoid liability upon a cause of action conditioned upon the prescribed presentation of a 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flores v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County
green
2 sentences1983The statement by the court at page 485 of Flores v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 13 Cal. App.3d 480 , applies with equal vigor here: "In addition to the fact that the affidavits in support of appellants' petition amply support the conclusion that their failure to file a timely claim was due to the causes alleged, there is no showing that the public entity at bench was in any way prejudiced by a late filing of the claim. 1983The statement by the court at page 485 of Flores v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d 480 , applies with equal vigor here: “In addition to the fact that the affidavits in support of appellants’ petition amply support the conclusion that their failure to file a timely claim was due to the causes alleged, there is no showing that the public entity at bench was in any way prejudiced by a late filing of the claim. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College District
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at pp. 532-533.) The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s refusal to grant relief under Government Code section 946.6 from the effect of the late filing of the claim, because the evidence established that an “extensive investigation was conducted” 9 and the “investigator’s actions were not devoid of diligence.” (Kaslavage, at pp. 536- 537.) Bettencourt, supra, 42 Cal.3d 270 involved a wrongful death action arising from a fatal field trip sponsored by a city college. 2015(Id. at pp. 532-533.) The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s refusal to grant relief under Government Code section 946.6 from the effect of the late filing of the claim, because the evidence established that an “extensive investigation was conducted” 9 and the “investigator’s actions were not devoid of diligence.” (Kaslavage, at pp. 536- 537.) Bettencourt, supra, 42 Cal.3d 270 involved a wrongful death action arising from a fatal field trip sponsored by a city college. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Katz v. A. J. Ruhlman & Co.
green
2 sentences1976Ruhlman & Co. (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 541 [ 159 P.2d 426 ], the appeal involved the claimant’s attempt to offset his claim against the decedent in an action by the administrator to recover upon a note given by the claimant to the decedent. 1976Ruhlman & Co. (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 541 [ 159 P.2d 426 ], the appeal involved the claimant’s attempt to offset his claim against the decedent in an action by the administrator to recover upon a note given by the claimant to the decedent. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Farrell v. County of Placer
green
2 sentences1976They stem from Farrell v. County of Placer (1944) 23 Cal.2d 624 [ 145 P.2d 570 , 153 A.L.R. 323 ]; in which the court concluded: “In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants should be estopped to complain of the late filing of the claim” ( 23 Cal.2d at p. 628 ); and “... the filing of the claim within ninety days, while mandatory upon the claimant and a condition precedent to his cause of action,' is nothing more than a procedural requirement as to the agency, which, as to the claimant, may be excused by estoppel.” (Id., at pp. 630-631.) In Katz v. A. J. 1976They stem from Farrell v. County of Placer (1944) 23 Cal.2d 624 [ 145 P.2d 570 , 153 A.L.R. 323 ]; in which the court concluded: “In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants should be estopped to complain of the late filing of the claim” ( 23 Cal.2d at p. 628 ); and “... the filing of the claim within ninety days, while mandatory upon the claimant and a condition precedent to his cause of action,' is nothing more than a procedural requirement as to the agency, which, as to the claimant, may be excused by estoppel.” (Id., at pp. 630-631.) In Katz v. A. J. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1971Thus in People v. Garcia (1965) 63 Cal.2d 265 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 324 , 405 P.2d 148 ], a delay of almost a year was justified where the petitioner could "barely write" and read "with difficulty" and where, after being advised that no proper notice of appeal had been filed and that his remedy was to seek appellate court relief, the circumstances of his imprisonment precluded any earlier action than that taken by him. 1971Thus in People v. Garcia (1965) 63 Cal.2d 265 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 324 , 405 P.2d 148 ], a delay of almost a year was justified where the petitioner could "barely write" and read "with difficulty" and where, after being advised that no proper notice of appeal had been filed and that his remedy was to seek appellate court relief, the circumstances of his imprisonment precluded any earlier action than that taken by him. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Acosta
green
2 sentences1971We have held generally “that any significant delay between sentencing and the filing of a petition for relief from a late filing under rule 31(a) must be reasonably explained or the doctrines of waiver and estoppel will be invoked to deny relief.” (People v. Acosta, supra, 71 Cal.2d 683 , 690.) Although significant delays between sentencing and the filing of a petition for relief have been justified, in each of such cases the delay has been deemed to have been reasonably explained for one reason or another. 1971We have held generally "that any significant delay between sentencing and the filing of a petition for relief from a late filing under rule 31(a) must be reasonably explained or the doctrines of waiver and estoppel will be invoked to deny relief." ( People v. Acosta, supra, 71 Cal.2d 683 , 690.) Although significant delays between sentencing and the filing of a petition for relief have been justified, in each of such cases the delay has been deemed to have been reasonably explained for one reason or another. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Radar v. Rogers
green
1 sentence1967We examined a line of decisions said to establish that compliance with such claim statutes "cannot be waived or excused by estoppel," and distinguished each on its facts. *645 Again, in Radar v. Rogers (1957) supra, 49 Cal.2d 243 , this court declined to require strict compliance with a statute very similar to Probate Code section 707. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Artukovich v. Astendorf
green
2 sentences1966We are necessarily in accord with the viewpoint of the trial judge that the case of Artukovich v. Astendorf, 21 Cal.2d 329 [ 131 P.2d 831 ], requires a holding that after the expiration of one year from the date of the accident the Superior Court of Tuolumne County lacked jurisdiction to require the board of the Sonora Union High School District to permit a late filing of the claim. 1966We are necessarily in accord with the viewpoint of the trial judge that the case of Artukovich v. Astendorf, 21 Cal.2d 329 [ 131 P.2d 831 ], requires a holding that after the expiration of one year from the date of the accident the Superior Court of Tuolumne County lacked jurisdiction to require the board of the Sonora Union High School District to permit a late filing of the claim. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
People v. Gustafson
green
2 sentences1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s 1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Lucille v. Dodge
green
1 sentence1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s | 1 | 1944–1944 |
McGee v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s | 1 | 1944–1944 |
La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle v. California EmploymentCommission
green
2 sentences1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s 1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Hewel v. Hogin
green
2 sentences1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s 1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Ernst v. Tiel
green
2 sentences1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s 1944Com., 56 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 47 ]; McGee v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 390 [ 5 P.2d 925 ]; Ernst v. Tiel, 51 Cal.App. 747 [ 197 P. 809 ]; People v. Gustafson, 53 Cal.App.2d 230 [ 127 P.2d 627 ]; Hewel v. Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248 [ 84 P. 1002 ].) It has been aptly said: “If we say with Mr. Justice Holmes, ‘Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government’, It is hard to see why the government should not be held to a like standard of rectangular rectitude when dealing with its citizens.” (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299.) In the instant case the facts clearly establish that defendants s | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.