time fixed hearing in California

11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1910–1961 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Spellens v. Spellensgreen cal · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961 2 sentences 1961Proc., § 983; Spellens v. Spellens, 49 Cal.2d 210 at 228-229 [ 317 P.2d 613 ].) An order denying a motion made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a judgment within the 603 meaning of rule 2 of the Buies on Appeal from Municipal Courts in Civil Cases (see rule 15(g)) and the time fixed by rule 2 governs such an appeal, that is to say, an appeal from such an order may be taken within 30 days after notice of entry of the order but in any event not later than 60 days after its entry. 1961Proc., § 983; Spellens v. Spellens, 49 Cal.2d 210 at 228-229 [ 317 P.2d 613 ].) An order denying a motion made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a judgment within the 603 meaning of rule 2 of the Buies on Appeal from Municipal Courts in Civil Cases (see rule 15(g)) and the time fixed by rule 2 governs such an appeal, that is to say, an appeal from such an order may be taken within 30 days after notice of entry of the order but in any event not later than 60 days after its entry.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Carter v. Waste green cal · 1910 2 sentences 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed, 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed,	2	1943–1950
In Re Estate of Sutro neutral cal · 1907 2 sentences 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed, 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed,	2	1943–1950
O'Brien v. Nelson green cal · 1913 2 sentences 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed, 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed,	2	1943–1950
In Re Estate of Baird green cal · 1916 2 sentences 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed, 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed,	2	1943–1950
Wickersham v. Wickersham green cal · 1902 2 sentences 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed, 1950(Carter v. Waste, 159 Cal. 23 [ 112 P. 727 ] ; Estate of Baird, 173 Cal. 617 [ 160 P. 1078 ] ; O’Brien v. Nelson, 164 Cal. 573 [ 129 P. 985 ]; Estate of Sutro, 152 Cal. 249 [ 92 P. 486, 1027 ] ; and Estate of Wickersham, 138 Cal. 355 [ 70 P. 1076 , 71 P. 437 ].) In deciding these cases, the court found the necessary statutory authority in the language of section 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reading: ‘At the time fixed for the hearing . . . any person interested in the estate may appear and contest the petition by filing written objections thereto.’ That section has since been repealed,	2	1943–1950
In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of Modesto green cal · 1894 2 sentences 1910(See Derby v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515, 522 , [ 38 Pac. 900 ] ; Sherwood v. Wallin, 154 Cal. 735, 738 , [ 99 Pac. 191 ].) And there is absolutely nothing in the record to show that there was not a full four weeks’ period between “the time of making such order” and the time fixed for hearing thereby, even if we consider fractions of days. 1910(See Derby v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515, 522 , [ 38 Pac. 900 ] ; Sherwood v. Wallin, 154 Cal. 735, 738 , [ 99 Pac. 191 ].) And there is absolutely nothing in the record to show that there was not a full four weeks’ period between “the time of making such order” and the time fixed for hearing thereby, even if we consider fractions of days.	2	1910–1910
Sherwood v. Wallin green cal · 1908 2 sentences 1910(See Derby v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515, 522 , [ 38 Pac. 900 ] ; Sherwood v. Wallin, 154 Cal. 735, 738 , [ 99 Pac. 191 ].) And there is absolutely nothing in the record to show that there was not a full four weeks’ period between “the time of making such order” and the time fixed for hearing thereby, even if we consider fractions of days. 1910(See Derby v. City of Modesto, 104 Cal. 515, 522 , [ 38 Pac. 900 ] ; Sherwood v. Wallin, 154 Cal. 735, 738 , [ 99 Pac. 191 ].) And there is absolutely nothing in the record to show that there was not a full four weeks’ period between “the time of making such order” and the time fixed for hearing thereby, even if we consider fractions of days.	2	1910–1910
Russi v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n green calctapp · 1945 2 sentences 1946A similar situation was presented to this court in Russi v. Bank of America, 69 Cal.App.2d 100 , where (p. 101) [ 158 P.2d 252 ] we said the appellant had “elected the particular form of record called for and is not entitled to commence all over again to prepare an entirely different form of record in the absence of some such unusual circumstance as the complete inability to obtain the record originally sought. 1946A similar situation was presented to this court in Russi v. Bank of America, 69 Cal.App.2d 100 , where (p. 101) [ 158 P.2d 252 ] we said the appellant had “elected the particular form of record called for and is not entitled to commence all over again to prepare an entirely different form of record in the absence of some such unusual circumstance as the complete inability to obtain the record originally sought.	1	1946–1946
Fulton v. Ramsey neutral wva · 1910 1 sentence 1927Certainly they would have had a right to be in court as spectators, without submitting the person of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court in a particular case pending therein, if they did not participate in any of the proceedings in the case. ...” In Fulton v. Ramsay, 67 W.	1	1927–1927
In Re Estate of Winchester green cal · 1901 1 sentence 1920(Brooks v. Union Trust Co., 146 Cal. 134, 138 , [ 79 Pac. 843 ]; Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta, 5 Cal. Unrep. 799 , [ 42 Pac. 239 ]; Estate of Lakemeyer, 6 Cal. Unrep. 695 , [ 65 Pac. 475 ].) As was said by the supreme court in Estate of Keating, 158 Cal., at page 115, [ 110 Pac. 112 ] : ‘There can be no doubt that where such default is made under circumstances which would show good faith under the decisions on that subject in applications under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether that section be applied to the supreme court or not, this court should grant similar relief, a	1	1920–1920
Remy v. Olds neutral cal · 1895 1 sentence 1920(Brooks v. Union Trust Co., 146 Cal. 134, 138 , [ 79 Pac. 843 ]; Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta, 5 Cal. Unrep. 799 , [ 42 Pac. 239 ]; Estate of Lakemeyer, 6 Cal. Unrep. 695 , [ 65 Pac. 475 ].) As was said by the supreme court in Estate of Keating, 158 Cal., at page 115, [ 110 Pac. 112 ] : ‘There can be no doubt that where such default is made under circumstances which would show good faith under the decisions on that subject in applications under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether that section be applied to the supreme court or not, this court should grant similar relief, a	1	1920–1920
Blizard v. Drinkhouse neutral cal · 1901 1 sentence 1920(Brooks v. Union Trust Co., 146 Cal. 134, 138 , [ 79 Pac. 843 ]; Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta, 5 Cal. Unrep. 799 , [ 42 Pac. 239 ]; Estate of Lakemeyer, 6 Cal. Unrep. 695 , [ 65 Pac. 475 ].) As was said by the supreme court in Estate of Keating, 158 Cal., at page 115, [ 110 Pac. 112 ] : ‘There can be no doubt that where such default is made under circumstances which would show good faith under the decisions on that subject in applications under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether that section be applied to the supreme court or not, this court should grant similar relief, a	1	1920–1920
Stoner v. City Council of Los Angeles green calctapp · 1908 1 sentence 1920Section 6 further provides: "At the next regular meeting of the city council after the expiration of the time within which said protest may be made, the city council shall proceed to hear and pass upon all protests so made and its decision shall be final and conclusive." [3] This provision gave the property owners notice of the time fixed for hearing protests, which was the regular meeting of the city council after the time for filing protests had *Page 63 expired, and we think this was sufficient. ( Stoner v. City Council of Los Angeles, 8 Cal.App. 610 , [ 97 P. 692 ].) 4.	1	1920–1920
Brooks v. Union Trust & Realty Co. green cal · 1905 2 sentences 1920(Brooks v. Union Trust Co., 146 Cal. 134, 138 , [ 79 Pac. 843 ]; Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta, 5 Cal. Unrep. 799 , [ 42 Pac. 239 ]; Estate of Lakemeyer, 6 Cal. Unrep. 695 , [ 65 Pac. 475 ].) As was said by the supreme court in Estate of Keating, 158 Cal., at page 115, [ 110 Pac. 112 ] : ‘There can be no doubt that where such default is made under circumstances which would show good faith under the decisions on that subject in applications under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether that section be applied to the supreme court or not, this court should grant similar relief, a 1920(Brooks v. Union Trust Co., 146 Cal. 134, 138 , [ 79 Pac. 843 ]; Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta, 5 Cal. Unrep. 799 , [ 42 Pac. 239 ]; Estate of Lakemeyer, 6 Cal. Unrep. 695 , [ 65 Pac. 475 ].) As was said by the supreme court in Estate of Keating, 158 Cal., at page 115, [ 110 Pac. 112 ] : ‘There can be no doubt that where such default is made under circumstances which would show good faith under the decisions on that subject in applications under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether that section be applied to the supreme court or not, this court should grant similar relief, a	1	1920–1920
Robinson v. Robinson neutral cal · 1910 1 sentence 1920(Brooks v. Union Trust Co., 146 Cal. 134, 138 , [ 79 Pac. 843 ]; Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta, 5 Cal. Unrep. 799 , [ 42 Pac. 239 ]; Estate of Lakemeyer, 6 Cal. Unrep. 695 , [ 65 Pac. 475 ].) As was said by the supreme court in Estate of Keating, 158 Cal., at page 115, [ 110 Pac. 112 ] : ‘There can be no doubt that where such default is made under circumstances which would show good faith under the decisions on that subject in applications under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether that section be applied to the supreme court or not, this court should grant similar relief, a	1	1920–1920
Wiggin v. Superior Court green cal · 1886 1 sentence 1919The order vacating the order discharging the administratrix was in response to a motion therefor made by Hubbard and Baehtell; but the record is wholly silent as to the ground or reasons assigned in support of the motion, in the absence of which it appears that the court acted upon a mere request of these attorneys, who, appearing for respondents, now insist, upon the authority of Wiggin v. Superior Court, 63 *288 Cal. 398, [ 9 Pac. 646 ], that the court in so doing acted within its jurisdiction.	1	1919–1919
Shaw v. Blasevich neutral calctapp · 1913 2 sentences 1913(Shaw v. Blasevich, 21 Cal. App. 498 , [ 132 Pac. 278 ].) The transcript in this case was filed in this court on the eleventh day after the day on which the clerk certified his 632 transcript and obviously within the time fixed by rule 2 for the filing of transcripts in civil actions. 1913(Shaw v. Blasevich, 21 Cal. App. 498 , [ 132 Pac. 278 ].) The transcript in this case was filed in this court on the eleventh day after the day on which the clerk certified his 632 transcript and obviously within the time fixed by rule 2 for the filing of transcripts in civil actions.	1	1913–1913

Where else courts name it

OH 37 (1984–2018) GA 30 (1917–2025) AL 15 (1960–2024) FL 14 (1953–2017) CA 11 (1910–1961) MS 11 (1992–2026) NC 9 (1917–2017) LA 8 (1934–2012) IL 8 (1906–1989) IN 6 (1911–1997) WI 5 (1998–2025) PA 5 (1897–1935) KY 4 (1978–2020) IA 4 (1960–1979) SC 4 (2006–2024) RI 4 (1978–2000) SD 4 (1910–2008) MT 3 (1918–1975) ID 3 (1917–2015) DC 3 (1948–2010) CT 3 (1935–1968) VA 3 (1876–1876) NE 3 (1907–2009) WY 3 (1902–1986) NV 3 (1940–1996) TN 3 (1977–2025) AR 3 (1920–1989) WA 2 (1905–1932) MA 2 (1991–1994) HI 2 (2005–2008) MD 2 (1923–2018) ND 2 (1977–1981) MN 2 (1900–1992) MO 2 (1991–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check