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 1976–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Plumgreen2 sentences1978A claimant is not required to sever and litigate a multifaceted claim in separate proceedings once all the necessary parties are before the court.” (Ibid.) (See also Estate of Plum, 255 Cal.App.2d 357, 362 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 241 ].) However, the probate court has no general equity jurisdiction although it has the power to apply equitable principles in aid of its function as a probate court. 1978A claimant is not required to sever and litigate a multifaceted claim in separate proceedings once all the necessary parties are before the court.” (Ibid.) (See also Estate of Plum, 255 Cal.App.2d 357, 362 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 241 ].) However, the probate court has no general equity jurisdiction although it has the power to apply equitable principles in aid of its function as a probate court. | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Bowlesgreen1 sentence2015(Estate of 19 It is also possible that an amended petition might be able to allege grounds for claims that the Domino parties owe fiduciary or other duties to the Trust, which allegations might bring those claims, too, within the “internal affairs” of the trust relationship. 22 Baglione (1966) 65 Cal.2d 192, 196-197 ; Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 696 [probate court with jurisdiction over matter involving internal affairs of trust has concurrent jurisdiction over related civil action for redress against third persons].) The thrust of the trial court’s challenged ruling is that t | 1 | 1 |
Univ Grt Falls v. NLRBgreen2 sentences2004"For the Board to exercise jurisdiction over an educational institution where `the inculcation of religious values is at least one purpose of the institution' and `to promise that courts in the future will control the Board's efforts to examine religious matters, is to tread the path that Catholic Bishop forecloses.'" ( Univ. of Great Falls v. NLRB (D.C.Cir.2002) 278 F.3d 1335, 1342 ( Great Falls ), quoting Universidad Central de Bayamon v. NLRB , at p. 402.) In Great Falls, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the NLRB's latest effort the "substantial religious charact 2004Cir. 2002) 349 U.S. App. D.C. 386 [ 278 F.3d 1335, 1342 ] (Great Falls), quoting Universidad Cent, de Bayamon v. N.L.R.B., at p. 402.) In Great Falls, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the NLRB’s latest effort—the “substantial religious character” test—because the multifaceted analysis created the same concerns as the approach rejected in Catholic Bishop. | 1 | 1 |
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.green1 sentence2004Moreover, the court invoked a long line of precedents which have made it clear that religious tests, inquiries into religious perspectives, or generally trolling through a person's or institution's religious beliefs is "`not only unnecessary but also offensive.'" ( Great Falls, supra, 278 F.3d at pp. 1341-1342, quoting Mitchell v. Helms (2000) 530 U.S. 793, 828 , 120 S.Ct. 2530 , 147 L.Ed.2d 660 ; Amos, supra, 483 *325 U.S. 327, 340, 345, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The court in Great Falls thus suggested a broad exemption which would avoid the pitfalls of having the governmen | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Helmsgreen2 sentences2004Moreover, the court invoked a long line of precedents which have made it clear that religious tests, inquiries into religious perspectives, or generally trolling through a person's or institution's religious beliefs is "`not only unnecessary but also offensive.'" ( Great Falls, supra, 278 F.3d at pp. 1341-1342, quoting Mitchell v. Helms (2000) 530 U.S. 793, 828 , 120 S.Ct. 2530 , 147 L.Ed.2d 660 ; Amos, supra, 483 *325 U.S. 327, 340, 345, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The court in Great Falls thus suggested a broad exemption which would avoid the pitfalls of having the governmen 2004Moreover, the court invoked a long line of precedents which have made it clear that religious tests, inquiries into religious perspectives, or generally trolling through a person's or institution's religious beliefs is "`not only unnecessary but also offensive.'" ( Great Falls, supra, 278 F.3d at pp. 1341-1342, quoting Mitchell v. Helms (2000) 530 U.S. 793, 828 , 120 S.Ct. 2530 , 147 L.Ed.2d 660 ; Amos, supra, 483 *325 U.S. 327, 340, 345, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The court in Great Falls thus suggested a broad exemption which would avoid the pitfalls of having the governmen | 1 | 1 |
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amosgreen2 sentences2004Moreover, the court invoked a long line of precedents which have made it clear that religious tests, inquiries into religious perspectives, or generally trolling through a person's or institution's religious beliefs is "`not only unnecessary but also offensive.'" ( Great Falls, supra, 278 F.3d at pp. 1341-1342, quoting Mitchell v. Helms (2000) 530 U.S. 793, 828 , 120 S.Ct. 2530 , 147 L.Ed.2d 660 ; Amos, supra, 483 *325 U.S. 327, 340, 345, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The court in Great Falls thus suggested a broad exemption which would avoid the pitfalls of having the governmen 2004Moreover, the court invoked a long line of precedents which have made it clear that religious tests, inquiries into religious perspectives, or generally trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs is “ ‘not only unnecessary but also offensive.’ ” (Great Falls, supra, 278 F.3d at pp. 1341-1342, quoting Mitchell v. Helms (2000) 530 U.S. 793, 828 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 660 , 120 S.Ct. 2530 ]; Amos, supra, 483 U.S. 327, 340, 345 (cone, opn. of Brennan, J.).) The court in Great Falls thus suggested a broad exemption which would avoid the pitfalls of having the government determine what is | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Muhammadgreen2 sentences1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable 1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable | 1 | 1 |
Brannen v. Howardgreen2 sentences1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable 1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Coxgreen2 sentences1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable 1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable | 1 | 1 |
Neubrand v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable 1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable | 1 | 1 |
Security First National Bank v. Grantgreen2 sentences1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable 1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable | 1 | 1 |
Noble v. Beachgreen2 sentences1976Noble v. Beach (1942) 21 Cal.2d 91, 96 [ 130 P.2d 426 ], is likewise not in point. 1976Noble v. Beach (1942) 21 Cal.2d 91, 96 [ 130 P.2d 426 ], is likewise not in point. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Baglione
green
2 sentences1988A claimant is not required to sever and litigate a multifaceted claim in separate proceedings once all the necessary parties are before the court." ( 65 Cal.2d at p. 197 .) This final requirement remains crucial to justifying why Baglione expanded probate court jurisdiction. 1988A claimant is not required to sever and litigate a multifaceted claim in separate proceedings once all the necessary parties are before the court.” ( 65 Cal.2d at p. 197 .) This final requirement remains crucial to justifying why Baglione expanded probate court jurisdiction. | 3 | 1988–2015 |
People v. Yoder
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Yoder (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 333, 338 .) Defendant mounts a multifaceted challenge to the court’s instructions on count 2, possession of marijuana for sale. 2014(People v. Yoder (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 333, 338 .) Defendant mounts a multifaceted challenge to the court’s instructions on count 2, possession of marijuana for sale. | 3 | 2014–2014 |
University of Great Falls v. National Labor Relations Board
neutral
1 sentence2004Cir. 2002) 349 U.S. App. D.C. 386 [ 278 F.3d 1335, 1342 ] (Great Falls), quoting Universidad Cent, de Bayamon v. N.L.R.B., at p. 402.) In Great Falls, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the NLRB’s latest effort—the “substantial religious character” test—because the multifaceted analysis created the same concerns as the approach rejected in Catholic Bishop. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Rowland v. Christian
red
2 sentences2003As first enunciated in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d.108, 113 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ], the following aspects bear on the existence of this duty: “[T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the *1133 burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty . . . with resulting liabilit 2003As first enunciated in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d.108, 113 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 443 P.2d 561 , 32 A.L.R.3d 496 ], the following aspects bear on the existence of this duty: “[T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the *1133 burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty . . . with resulting liabilit | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Saddler
green
2 sentences1980Ellers further contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.62 because (1) the 1976 amendment to Penal Code section 1093, subdivision 6 effectively nullified the validity and applicability of the instruction, and (2) he did not fail to deny or explain any material facts against him. 4 In People v. Saddler, supra, 24 Cal.3d 671, 678-681 , our Supreme Court rejected a multifaceted challenge of the validity of CALJIC No. *955 2.62 which included Ellers’ primary contention, holding the instruction “suffers no constitutional or other infirmity and may be given in 1980Ellers further contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.62 because (1) the 1976 amendment to Penal Code section 1093, subdivision 6 effectively nullified the validity and applicability of the instruction, and (2) he did not fail to deny or explain any material facts against him. 4 In People v. Saddler, supra, 24 Cal.3d 671, 678-681 , our Supreme Court rejected a multifaceted challenge of the validity of CALJIC No. *955 2.62 which included Ellers’ primary contention, holding the instruction “suffers no constitutional or other infirmity and may be given in | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Scarlata v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n
green
2 sentences1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable 1978(Estate of Scarlata, 193 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) In Estate of Cox, 8 Cal.App.3d 168, 182 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 55 ], the appeal court stated: “In some circumstances the superior court sitting in probate has undertaken to dispose of all aspects of a controversy, some of which were properly brought before it in its limited probate jurisdiction and others of which were incidental to the matters properly brought before it, when all necessary parties also were before the court.” (Ibid.) But held: “We need not decide whether the principle declared in Estate of Baglione , . . . , is applicable | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In Re Estate of Howe
green
2 sentences1976A claimant is not required to sever and litigate a multifaceted claim in separate proceedings once all the necessaiy parties are before the court.” (See also Estate of Plum (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 357, 362 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 241 ].) Estate of Howe (1911) 161 Cal. 152 [ 118 P. 515 ], which held that the probate court did not have jurisdiction of a dispute between an heir and one claiming to be an execution purchaser of his interest in the estate is not in point as it was decided long before the adoption of section 1020.1 of the Probate Code, which was added in 1941, and the decisions of the cases abo 1976A claimant is not required to sever and litigate a multifaceted claim in separate proceedings once all the necessaiy parties are before the court.” (See also Estate of Plum (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 357, 362 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 241 ].) Estate of Howe (1911) 161 Cal. 152 [ 118 P. 515 ], which held that the probate court did not have jurisdiction of a dispute between an heir and one claiming to be an execution purchaser of his interest in the estate is not in point as it was decided long before the adoption of section 1020.1 of the Probate Code, which was added in 1941, and the decisions of the cases abo | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.