unverified claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

unverified claim in California

11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1935–1982 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 (12)

CaseFollowedCited
Spencer v. City of Calipatriagreen
calctapp · 1935 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 1935–1959
2 sentences

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

35
Cooper v. County of Buttegreen
calctapp · 1936 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1959
2 sentences

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

33
Cruise v. City & County of San Franciscogreen
calctapp · 1951 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1960
2 sentences

1960While substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App. 2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ]), an unverified claim is not substantial compliance and hence cannot form the basis for an action against a municipality under the Public Liability Act (Baker v. Cohen, supra, p. 844 ; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 649 [ 337 P.2d 521 ].) Factually, Farrell v. County of Placer, supra; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, supra; and Mendibles v. City of San Diego,

1960While substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App. 2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ]), an unverified claim is not substantial compliance and hence cannot form the basis for an action against a municipality under the Public Liability Act (Baker v. Cohen, supra, p. 844 ; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 649 [ 337 P.2d 521 ].) Factually, Farrell v. County of Placer, supra; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, supra; and Mendibles v. City of San Diego,

22
Baker v. Cohengreen
calctapp · 1956 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1960
2 sentences

1960While substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App. 2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ]), an unverified claim is not substantial compliance and hence cannot form the basis for an action against a municipality under the Public Liability Act (Baker v. Cohen, supra, p. 844 ; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 649 [ 337 P.2d 521 ].) Factually, Farrell v. County of Placer, supra; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, supra; and Mendibles v. City of San Diego,

1960While substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App. 2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ]), an unverified claim is not substantial compliance and hence cannot form the basis for an action against a municipality under the Public Liability Act (Baker v. Cohen, supra, p. 844 ; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 649 [ 337 P.2d 521 ].) Factually, Farrell v. County of Placer, supra; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, supra; and Mendibles v. City of San Diego,

22
Eppstein v. City of Berkeleygreen
calctapp · 1942 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1957–1959
2 sentences

1959(Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, 52 Cal.App. 2d 395, 397 [ 126 P.2d 365 ].)” In Parodi v. City & County of San Francisco, 160 Cal.App.2d 577, 580 [ 325 P.2d 224 ], it is said: “The California cases considering claim statutes have held that substantial compliance with the statute only is required and have set forth what is necessary to constitute substantial compliance.

1959(Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, 52 Cal.App. 2d 395, 397 [ 126 P.2d 365 ].)” In Parodi v. City & County of San Francisco, 160 Cal.App.2d 577, 580 [ 325 P.2d 224 ], it is said: “The California cases considering claim statutes have held that substantial compliance with the statute only is required and have set forth what is necessary to constitute substantial compliance.

22
Hoffman v. City of Palm Springsgreen
calctapp · 1959 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1982
2 sentences

1982(Spaulding v. Howard (1898) 121 Cal. 194 [ 53 P. 563 ]; Elling Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 48 Cal.App.3d 89 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].) *588 In Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 645 [ 337 P.2d 521 ], the court affirmed the trial judge in granting the defendants a judgment on the pleadings where originally an unverified claim was filed and then an amended complaint was filed alleging the service and filing of a verified claim, stating at page 650 that appellant’s contention that the amended and supplemental claim filed by them relates back to the date of filing of the origina

1982(Spaulding v. Howard (1898) 121 Cal. 194 [ 53 P. 563 ]; Elling Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 48 Cal.App.3d 89 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].) *588 In Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 645 [ 337 P.2d 521 ], the court affirmed the trial judge in granting the defendants a judgment on the pleadings where originally an unverified claim was filed and then an amended complaint was filed alleging the service and filing of a verified claim, stating at page 650 that appellant’s contention that the amended and supplemental claim filed by them relates back to the date of filing of the origina

12
Whitson v. LaPaygreen
calctapp · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

1959(Citations.) ’ ’ In Whitson v. LaPay, 153 Cal.App.2d 584, 590 [ 315 P.2d 45 ], it is held that “The filing of an unverified claim is not a substantial compliance with a statute or ordinance requiring the filing of a verified claim (Spencer v. City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267, 269 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ]) and the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to a claim which fails to state the claimant’s address where the statute or ordinance so requires.

11
Davis-Heller-Pearce Co. v. Ramontgreen
calctapp · 1924 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

11
Peters v. City & County of San Franciscogreen
cal · 1953 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

11
Parodi v. City & County of San Franciscogreen
calctapp · 1958 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959(Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, 52 Cal.App. 2d 395, 397 [ 126 P.2d 365 ].)” In Parodi v. City & County of San Francisco, 160 Cal.App.2d 577, 580 [ 325 P.2d 224 ], it is said: “The California cases considering claim statutes have held that substantial compliance with the statute only is required and have set forth what is necessary to constitute substantial compliance.

1959(Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, 52 Cal.App. 2d 395, 397 [ 126 P.2d 365 ].)” In Parodi v. City & County of San Francisco, 160 Cal.App.2d 577, 580 [ 325 P.2d 224 ], it is said: “The California cases considering claim statutes have held that substantial compliance with the statute only is required and have set forth what is necessary to constitute substantial compliance.

11
White-Satra v. City of Los Angelesgreen
calctapp · 1936 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956
2 sentences

1956Dist., 87 Cal.App.2d 882, 883-884 [ 198 P.2d 106 ] ; White-Satra v. City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.App.2d 688, 690 [58 P.2d 933]; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ].) In Spencer v. City of Calipatria, supra, it is said at page 269: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial" compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that "the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. [Citing cases.] No rig

1956Dist., 87 Cal.App.2d 882, 883-884 [ 198 P.2d 106 ] ; White-Satra v. City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.App.2d 688, 690 [58 P.2d 933]; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ].) In Spencer v. City of Calipatria, supra, it is said at page 269: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial" compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that "the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. [Citing cases.] No rig

11
Bradshaw v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Districtgreen
calctapp · 1948 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956
2 sentences

1956Dist., 87 Cal.App.2d 882, 883-884 [ 198 P.2d 106 ] ; White-Satra v. City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.App.2d 688, 690 [58 P.2d 933]; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ].) In Spencer v. City of Calipatria, supra, it is said at page 269: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial" compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that "the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. [Citing cases.] No rig

1956Dist., 87 Cal.App.2d 882, 883-884 [ 198 P.2d 106 ] ; White-Satra v. City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.App.2d 688, 690 [58 P.2d 933]; Cooper v. County of Butte, 17 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [ 61 P.2d 516 ].) In Spencer v. City of Calipatria, supra, it is said at page 269: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial" compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that "the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. [Citing cases.] No rig

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (14)

CaseCitedYears
Myers v. Hopland Union Elementary School District neutral
calctapp · 1935
2 sentences

1943The court at page 269 of the opinion held otherwise, and said: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. {Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal. App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ] ; Myers v. Hopland Union Elementary School District of Mendocino County, 6 Cal. App. 2d 590 [ 44 P.2d 654 ].) No right to bring such an action exists

1943The court at page 269 of the opinion held otherwise, and said: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. {Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal. App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ] ; Myers v. Hopland Union Elementary School District of Mendocino County, 6 Cal. App. 2d 590 [ 44 P.2d 654 ].) No right to bring such an action exists

31935–1943
Thompson v. County of Los Angeles green
calctapp · 1934
2 sentences

1943The court at page 269 of the opinion held otherwise, and said: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. {Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal. App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ] ; Myers v. Hopland Union Elementary School District of Mendocino County, 6 Cal. App. 2d 590 [ 44 P.2d 654 ].) No right to bring such an action exists

1943The court at page 269 of the opinion held otherwise, and said: “Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action. {Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 140 Cal. App. 73 [ 35 P.2d 185 ] ; Myers v. Hopland Union Elementary School District of Mendocino County, 6 Cal. App. 2d 590 [ 44 P.2d 654 ].) No right to bring such an action exists

31935–1943
Uttley v. City of Santa Ana green
calctapp · 1933
2 sentences

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

21935–1936
Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego green
cal · 1919
2 sentences

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

21935–1936
Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. City of Los Angeles green
cal · 1929
2 sentences

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

21935–1936
Bancroft v. City of San Diego green
cal · 1898
2 sentences

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

1936(Bancroft v. San Diego, 120 Cal. 432 [ 52 Pac. 712 ]; Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego, 181 Cal. 696 [ 186 Pac. 345 ]; Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. 430 [ 278 Pac. 1028 ]; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal. App. 23 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 377 ].) Not only is the filing of an unverified claim not a substantial compliance with a statute requiring that a verified claim be filed but, in two recent cases, it has been held that the provisions of the two statutes here in question are mandatory and must be complied with in order to lay the foundation for an action.

21935–1936
Elling Corp. v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1982(Spaulding v. Howard (1898) 121 Cal. 194 [ 53 P. 563 ]; Elling Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 48 Cal.App.3d 89 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].) *588 In Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 645 [ 337 P.2d 521 ], the court affirmed the trial judge in granting the defendants a judgment on the pleadings where originally an unverified claim was filed and then an amended complaint was filed alleging the service and filing of a verified claim, stating at page 650 that appellant’s contention that the amended and supplemental claim filed by them relates back to the date of filing of the origina

1982(Spaulding v. Howard (1898) 121 Cal. 194 [ 53 P. 563 ]; Elling Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 48 Cal.App.3d 89 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].) *588 In Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 645 [ 337 P.2d 521 ], the court affirmed the trial judge in granting the defendants a judgment on the pleadings where originally an unverified claim was filed and then an amended complaint was filed alleging the service and filing of a verified claim, stating at page 650 that appellant’s contention that the amended and supplemental claim filed by them relates back to the date of filing of the origina

11982–1982
Spaulding v. Howard green
cal · 1898
2 sentences

1982(Spaulding v. Howard (1898) 121 Cal. 194 [ 53 P. 563 ]; Elling Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 48 Cal.App.3d 89 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].) *588 In Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 645 [ 337 P.2d 521 ], the court affirmed the trial judge in granting the defendants a judgment on the pleadings where originally an unverified claim was filed and then an amended complaint was filed alleging the service and filing of a verified claim, stating at page 650 that appellant’s contention that the amended and supplemental claim filed by them relates back to the date of filing of the origina

1982(Spaulding v. Howard (1898) 121 Cal. 194 [ 53 P. 563 ]; Elling Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 48 Cal.App.3d 89 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].) *588 In Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 645 [ 337 P.2d 521 ], the court affirmed the trial judge in granting the defendants a judgment on the pleadings where originally an unverified claim was filed and then an amended complaint was filed alleging the service and filing of a verified claim, stating at page 650 that appellant’s contention that the amended and supplemental claim filed by them relates back to the date of filing of the origina

11982–1982
Mendibles v. City of San Diego green
calctapp · 1950
2 sentences

1960While substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App. 2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ]), an unverified claim is not substantial compliance and hence cannot form the basis for an action against a municipality under the Public Liability Act (Baker v. Cohen, supra, p. 844 ; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 649 [ 337 P.2d 521 ].) Factually, Farrell v. County of Placer, supra; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, supra; and Mendibles v. City of San Diego,

1960While substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App. 2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ]), an unverified claim is not substantial compliance and hence cannot form the basis for an action against a municipality under the Public Liability Act (Baker v. Cohen, supra, p. 844 ; Hoffman v. City of Palm Springs, 169 Cal.App.2d 645, 649 [ 337 P.2d 521 ].) Factually, Farrell v. County of Placer, supra; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, supra; and Mendibles v. City of San Diego,

11960–1960
Gee Chong Pong v. Harris green
calctapp · 1918
1 sentence

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

11959–1959
Kelley v. City of Flint green
mich · 1930
2 sentences

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

1959(Davis-Heller-Pearce Go. v. Ramont, 66 Cal. App. 778, 781 [ 226 P. 972 ]; Gee Chong Pong v. Harris, 38 CaLApp. 214, 217 [ 175 P. 806 ]); Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691 [ 232 N.W. 407, 408 ].)” In Baker v. Cohen, 139 Cal.App.2d 842, 843-844 [ 294 P.2d 518 ], the court said: “Though the original requirement of strict compliance with the statute has given way to a rule requiring only substantial compliance (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.2d 419, 426 [ 260 P.2d 55 ] ; Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco, 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 563 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]), it has been held rep

11959–1959
Erde v. City of Los Angeles green
calctapp · 1955
2 sentences

1957In Erde v. City of Los Angeles, 137 Cal.App.2d 175 [ 289 P.2d 884 ], it was held that the filing of a claim was not sufficient where the verified claim which was filed did not state the date of the accident although an unverified copy of the claim which was retained by the claimant did show such date.

1957In Erde v. City of Los Angeles, 137 Cal.App.2d 175 [ 289 P.2d 884 ], it was held that the filing of a claim was not sufficient where the verified claim which was filed did not state the date of the accident although an unverified copy of the claim which was retained by the claimant did show such date.

11957–1957
Oda v. Elk Grove Union Grammar School District green
calctapp · 1943
2 sentences

1957In Oda v. Elk Grove etc. School Dist., 61 Cal.App.2d 551 [ 143 P.2d 490 ], it was held that a similar statute requiring the filing of a verified claim as a condition of maintaining a suit for damages was mandatory; that the filing of an unverified claim was not a substantial compliance with the statute; and that the filing of an unverified claim could not be justified under section 3 of the Education Code, which provides that the provisions of that code are to be liberally construed.

1957In Oda v. Elk Grove etc. School Dist., 61 Cal.App.2d 551 [ 143 P.2d 490 ], it was held that a similar statute requiring the filing of a verified claim as a condition of maintaining a suit for damages was mandatory; that the filing of an unverified claim was not a substantial compliance with the statute; and that the filing of an unverified claim could not be justified under section 3 of the Education Code, which provides that the provisions of that code are to be liberally construed.

11957–1957
Douglass v. City of Los Angeles green
cal · 1935
2 sentences

1956That such a claim must be verified is a reasonable provision which should not be held to be ineffectual and meaningless.” A discussion of this case in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, supra, ends with this statement, at page 129: “The holding therein made is hereby declared to be the law in all cases coming within its purview.” Hall v. City of Los Angeles, supra, says at page 203: “The holding of the Spencer case was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, 5 Cal.2d 123 [ 53 P.2d 353 ], and was declared to be the law in all eases coming within its purview.” N

1956That such a claim must be verified is a reasonable provision which should not be held to be ineffectual and meaningless.” A discussion of this case in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, supra, ends with this statement, at page 129: “The holding therein made is hereby declared to be the law in all cases coming within its purview.” Hall v. City of Los Angeles, supra, says at page 203: “The holding of the Spencer case was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Douglass v. City of Los Angeles, 5 Cal.2d 123 [ 53 P.2d 353 ], and was declared to be the law in all eases coming within its purview.” N

11956–1956

Where else courts name it

CA 11 (1935–1982) NY 9 (1987–2010) IL 2 (1990–2021) MI 2 (1902–1908) OK 2 (1909–1982)

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