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.
10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2023 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atchley v. City of Fresnogreen1 sentence2021(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); see Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 [to be considered, a contention on appeal must be supported with authority or analysis].) Nevertheless, even were we to assume plaintiffs are generally referring to activities regarding White Gold and GCR, we cannot speculate what specific facts regarding these activities would give rise to a constructive fraud claim. b. | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co.green2 sentences2008(See Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362, 367 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 157 ].) [14] On remand, should the trial court determine, in resolving the motion to compel arbitration, that the Agreement is void for fraud in the execution, this determination would not foreclose a jury trial on the Browns' causes of action regarding Wells Fargo's allegedly improper sale of the Sav-On stock. [1] Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., "[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject a 2008(See Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362, 367 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 157 ].) [14] On remand, should the trial court determine, in resolving the motion to compel arbitration, that the Agreement is void for fraud in the execution, this determination would not foreclose a jury trial on the Browns' causes of action regarding Wells Fargo's allegedly improper sale of the Sav-On stock. [1] Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., "[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject a | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. Children's Home Soc'y of Californiagreen1 sentence2001(Tyler v. Children’s Home Society, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 527, 538 .) In making the determination of whether the parent had been prejudiced, the court noted a “contract of relinquishment cannot be rescinded when it appears that consent would have been given and the contract entered into notwithstanding the fraud or undue influence.” (Id., at p. 529.) Dolores argues that Tyler is not analogous as the relinquishments there had been received and acknowledged by DSS. | 1 | 1 |
County of Amador v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b 1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b | 1 | 1 |
Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kingsgreen2 sentences1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b 1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b | 1 | 1 |
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Buttegreen2 sentences1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b 1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b | 1 | 1 |
County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b 1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strouse v. Webcor Constr., L.P.
green
2 sentences2021(See Strouse v. Webcor Construction, L.P., supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 713 .) Under the instruction, the Rosses needed to prove for each syndication that Fox knew the purchase price stated on the offering documents was different from the acquisition price of the property. 2021(See Strouse v. Webcor Construction, L.P., supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 713 .) Under the instruction, the Rosses needed to prove for each syndication that Fox knew the purchase price stated on the offering documents was different from the acquisition price of the property. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego
green
2 sentences1977In De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego, supra, 45 Cal.2d 546, 564 , the court reinterpreted the ‘something-equivalent-to-fraud’ standard as allowing judicial review for ‘arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, or failure to follow the standards prescribed by the Legislature,’ and this standard now appears to have replaced the less specific constructive fraud standard of the Mahoney era. [Citations.]” (16 Cal.3d at pp. 21-23, fn. omitted.) In the light of the foregoing analysis we find that the precedents relied upon by the taxpayers are controlling. 1976In De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego, supra, 45 Cal.2d 546, 564 , the court reinterpreted the “something-equivalent-to-fraud” standard as allowing judicial review for “arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, or failure to follow the standards prescribed by the Legislature,” and this standard now appears to have replaced the less specific constructive fraud standard of the Mahoney era. | 2 | 1976–1977 |
Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County
green
1 sentence2023Generally, an appellant “‘must “show not only that the trial court erred, but also that the error was prejudicial”; i.e., “the [appellant] must show that it is reasonably probable the ultimate outcome would have been more favorable to the [appellant] had the trial court not erred . . . .”’” (Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1020 ; see Cal. Const., art. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack
green
1 sentence2023Fourth Cause of Action - Constructive Fraud “Constructive fraud ‘ “ ‘ “is a unique species of fraud applicable only to a fiduciary or confidential relationship.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘Constructive fraud “arises on a breach of duty by one in a confidential or fiduciary relationship to another which induces justifiable reliance by the latter to his prejudice.” [Citation.] Actual reliance and causation of injury must be shown.’ ” (Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1131 .) Because there is no fiduciary relationship between a corporation and its creditors, and PF1 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Because it was undisputed that Niparko owed a fiduciary duty to Silvester, Silvester’s proposed instruction “would be redundant and confusing.” (Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 755, 775 .) Where an element of a cause of action is already established as a matter of law or its finding is subsumed by another test, it is not necessary for the jury to independently determine that element. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC
green
2 sentences2008Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 United States Code section 1 et seq., “[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject arbitration clauses to special scrutiny.” (Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless (5th Cir. 2004) 379 F.3d 159 , 167.) Therefore, when we adjudicate a constructive fraud defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision of a contract, we cannot impose a duty on brokers to orally explain the arbitration provision, unless we also impose the same duty with respect to eac 2008(See Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 362, 367 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 157 ].) [14] On remand, should the trial court determine, in resolving the motion to compel arbitration, that the Agreement is void for fraud in the execution, this determination would not foreclose a jury trial on the Browns' causes of action regarding Wells Fargo's allegedly improper sale of the Sav-On stock. [1] Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., "[e]ven when using doctrines of general applicability, state courts are not permitted to employ those general doctrines in ways that subject a | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda
green
1 sentence1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama
green
1 sentence1976(See Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 163, 180 ; Westlake Farms, Inc. v. County of Kings (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 179, 186-187 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. County of Butte (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 461, 473 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674 ; County of Amador *23 v. State Board of Equalization (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 205, 216 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; County of Tuolumne v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 352, 372 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) The recent cases have also distinguished b | 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.