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 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re IWgreen1 sentence2025According to the report prepared by the Bureau in anticipation of the section 366.26 hearing, the caregivers with whom Children had been living for more than a year “are 4 “Conceivably, there could be some legal impediment to adoption by a prospective adoptive parent that, in turn, might preclude reliance on this parent's interest as a basis for an adoptability finding.” (In re I.W., supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1526.) But as we have already observed, this is precisely the claim Mother has forfeited. 3 willing and able to adopt the children.” The report describes the caregivers, “a married cou | 1 | 1 |
Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commissiongreen1 sentence2015(Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 387 (Muzzy Ranch) [under Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3), agency must determine whether the evidence in the administrative record shows no possibility the proposed activity may have a significant effect on the environment].) And appellants‘ test for determining whether the unusual circumstances exception applies —whether there is a ―reasonable possibility‖ the proposed project ―will have a significant effect on the environment‖ (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c)) — is precisely the test used to determine whether Gu | 1 | 1 |
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneipgreen2 sentences1981(See Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation (1979) 439 U.S. 463, 478, fn. 22 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 740, 754 , 99 S.Ct. 740 ]; Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn., supra, 443 U.S. at p. 690 [61 L.Ed.2d at p. 848].) The court will consider all relevant indicia of that intent: "[W]hether a congressional determination to terminate is `expressed on the face of the (relevant) Act(s) or [is] clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history.' [Citation omitted; brackets in original.]" ( Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, 430 U.S. 584, 588, fn. 4 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 660, 666 ]; see generally, Coggins & Mo 1981(See Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation (1979) 439 U.S. 463, 478, fn. 22 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 740, 754 , 99 S.Ct. 740 ]; Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn., supra, 443 U.S. at p. 690 [61 L.Ed.2d at p. 848].) The court will consider all relevant indicia of that intent: "[W]hether a congressional determination to terminate is `expressed on the face of the (relevant) Act(s) or [is] clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history.' [Citation omitted; brackets in original.]" ( Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, 430 U.S. 584, 588, fn. 4 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 660, 666 ]; see generally, Coggins & Mo | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nationgreen2 sentences1981(See Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation (1979) 439 U.S. 463, 478, fn. 22 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 740, 754 , 99 S.Ct. 740 ]; Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn., supra, 443 U.S. at p. 690 [61 L.Ed.2d at p. 848].) The court will consider all relevant indicia of that intent: "[W]hether a congressional determination to terminate is `expressed on the face of the (relevant) Act(s) or [is] clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history.' [Citation omitted; brackets in original.]" ( Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, 430 U.S. 584, 588, fn. 4 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 660, 666 ]; see generally, Coggins & Mo 1981(See Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation (1979) 439 U.S. 463, 478, fn. 22 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 740, 754 , 99 S.Ct. 740 ]; Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn., supra, 443 U.S. at p. 690 [61 L.Ed.2d at p. 848].) The court will consider all relevant indicia of that intent: "[W]hether a congressional determination to terminate is `expressed on the face of the (relevant) Act(s) or [is] clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history.' [Citation omitted; brackets in original.]" ( Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, supra, 430 U.S. 584, 588, fn. 4 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 660, 666 ]; see generally, Coggins & Mo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Denham v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1981Moreover, as this court held in Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at page 563 , section 583, subdivision (a) imposes "no requirement that the motion to dismiss `must' be granted unless opposed by an adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." Contrary to the implication in Justice Clark's assertion, this is precisely the requirement which today's decision imposes on trial courts hearing section 581a motions. [8] It is interesting to note that the briefs of petitioner and plaintiff assume opposite conclusions on the reasonable diligence issue without the benefit of a factual fin 1981Moreover, as this court held in Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at page 563 , section 583 , subdivision (a) imposes "no requirement that the motion to dismiss `must' be granted unless opposed by an adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." Contrary to the implication in Justice Clark's assertion, this is precisely the requirement which today's decision imposes on trial courts hearing section 581a motions. 8 It is interesting to note that the briefs of petitioner and plaintiff assume opposite conclusions on the reasonable diligence issue without the benefit of a factual find | 2 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Ewoldt
green
1 sentence2015This is precisely the analysis required by Tran, supra, 51 Cal.4th 1040 and Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Quang Minh Tran
green
2 sentences2015This is precisely the analysis required by Tran, supra, 51 Cal.4th 1040 and Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380 . 2015This is precisely the analysis required by Tran, supra, 51 Cal.4th 1040 and Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cislaw v. Southland Corp.
green
1 sentence2013It is a question of fact as to whether, as the court considered in Cislaw , the franchisor retains “ ‘the right to control the means and manner in which the result is achieved’ ” and exercises “ ‘complete or substantial control over the franchisee.’ ” (Cislaw, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 1288 .) This is precisely the standard applied by the trial court. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Dawn D. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2005(Dawn D., supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 942 ; see id. at p. 948 (dis. opn. of Chin, J.).) Phillip cites several cases for the proposition that a biological father has a constitutional right to establish paternity where the mother’s marriage to the presumed father terminated shortly after the child was born. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
City of Los Angeles v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2004(City of Los Angeles v. Lewis, supra, 175 Cal. at p. 781 ; Farley v. Stirling, supra, 70 Cal.App. at pp. 527-530; see Community Memorial Hospital v. County of Ventura, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 206-207.) This is precisely the principle we have applied in this case. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Hagen
green
2 sentences2003There must be some element of conscious decision-making, which is not present when one has simply forgotten. [8] This is precisely the analysis required by the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652 , 80 Cal. Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ( Hagen) , which the majority unsuccessfully struggles to distinguish. 2003There must be some element of conscious decision-making, which is not present when one has simply forgotten. [8] This is precisely the analysis required by the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652 , 80 Cal. Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ( Hagen) , which the majority unsuccessfully struggles to distinguish. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rustom v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences1990This is precisely the analysis done by Judge Tashima in Rustom v. Atlantic Richfield, supra, 618 F.Supp. 210 , the decision upon which we previously relied. 1990This is precisely the analysis done by Judge Tashima in Rustom v. Atlantic Richfield, supra, 618 F.Supp. 210 , the decision upon which we previously relied. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.