10 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spiritual Psychic Science Church of Truth, Inc. v. City of Azusagreen2 sentences2019(See Spiritual, supra , 39 Cal.3d at p. 508 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 703 P.2d 1119 ["The essence of the issue whether an activity falls within the constitutional protection of 'speech' is whether the 'speaker,' by engaging in the activity, is communicating information of any sort"], disapproved of on other grounds in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 , 968, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 45 P.3d 243 ; Spence v. Washington (1974) 418 U.S. 405 , 410-411, 94 S.Ct. 2727 , 41 L.Ed.2d 842 [under federal Constitution, test for determining whether conduct is protected expression asks whether person intend 2019(See Spiritual, supra , 39 Cal.3d at p. 508 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 703 P.2d 1119 ["The essence of the issue whether an activity falls within the constitutional protection of 'speech' is whether the 'speaker,' by engaging in the activity, is communicating information of any sort"], disapproved of on other grounds in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 , 968, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 45 P.3d 243 ; Spence v. Washington (1974) 418 U.S. 405 , 410-411, 94 S.Ct. 2727 , 41 L.Ed.2d 842 [under federal Constitution, test for determining whether conduct is protected expression asks whether person intend | 1 | 2 |
Spence v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2019(See Spiritual, supra , 39 Cal.3d at p. 508 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 703 P.2d 1119 ["The essence of the issue whether an activity falls within the constitutional protection of 'speech' is whether the 'speaker,' by engaging in the activity, is communicating information of any sort"], disapproved of on other grounds in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 , 968, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 45 P.3d 243 ; Spence v. Washington (1974) 418 U.S. 405 , 410-411, 94 S.Ct. 2727 , 41 L.Ed.2d 842 [under federal Constitution, test for determining whether conduct is protected expression asks whether person intend 2019(See Spiritual, supra , 39 Cal.3d at p. 508 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 703 P.2d 1119 ["The essence of the issue whether an activity falls within the constitutional protection of 'speech' is whether the 'speaker,' by engaging in the activity, is communicating information of any sort"], disapproved of on other grounds in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 , 968, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 45 P.3d 243 ; Spence v. Washington (1974) 418 U.S. 405 , 410-411, 94 S.Ct. 2727 , 41 L.Ed.2d 842 [under federal Constitution, test for determining whether conduct is protected expression asks whether person intend | 1 | 2 |
Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LPgreen1 sentence2016“Time and effort spent assembling materials for an application to modify a loan is the sort of nominal damage subject to the maxim de minimus non curat lex — i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles.” (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 79 (Lueras).) To the extent plaintiffs claim their particular efforts were not de minimus because of the eight-year period during which they continually asked for modifications, Bank of America’s evidentiary showing effectively demonstrated plaintiffs’ extended efforts could not be in reasonable reliance on any of the al | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019(See Spiritual, supra , 39 Cal.3d at p. 508 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 703 P.2d 1119 ["The essence of the issue whether an activity falls within the constitutional protection of 'speech' is whether the 'speaker,' by engaging in the activity, is communicating information of any sort"], disapproved of on other grounds in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 , 968, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 45 P.3d 243 ; Spence v. Washington (1974) 418 U.S. 405 , 410-411, 94 S.Ct. 2727 , 41 L.Ed.2d 842 [under federal Constitution, test for determining whether conduct is protected expression asks whether person intend 2019(See Spiritual, supra , 39 Cal.3d at p. 508 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 703 P.2d 1119 ["The essence of the issue whether an activity falls within the constitutional protection of 'speech' is whether the 'speaker,' by engaging in the activity, is communicating information of any sort"], disapproved of on other grounds in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939 , 968, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296 , 45 P.3d 243 ; Spence v. Washington (1974) 418 U.S. 405 , 410-411, 94 S.Ct. 2727 , 41 L.Ed.2d 842 [under federal Constitution, test for determining whether conduct is protected expression asks whether person intend | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Kowis v. Howard
green
2 sentences2014(See Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 *133 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 ].) In CashCall II, we rejected plaintiffs’ arguments (made in their appellate reply brief) that the objective test does not require an examination of the surrounding facts. 2014(See Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 *133 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 ].) In CashCall II, we rejected plaintiffs’ arguments (made in their appellate reply brief) that the objective test does not require an examination of the surrounding facts. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences2013(County of Santa Clara, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 .) The merits of plaintiffs’ challenge to the February 9, 2011 order sustaining the demurrers to all causes of action in the amended complaint may also be considered on appeal, since that order also constitutes an intermediate ruling that necessarily affects the judgment. 2013(County of Santa Clara, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 .) 11 The merits of plaintiffs’ challenge to the February 9, 2011 order sustaining the demurrers to all causes of action in the amended complaint may also be considered on appeal, since that order also constitutes an intermediate ruling that necessarily affects the judgment. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District
green
1 sentence2025(Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College Dist., supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 949 .) Thus, even if we determined the trial court erred in finding the plaintiffs waived their claim that the adoption of Alternative 3a constitutes new information or changed circumstances requiring further environmental analysis, we would find against the plaintiffs on the merits. 22 stated that he “inadvertently omitted” “major sections” from the plaintiffs’ opening brief.11 The trial court denied the motion on the basis that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking relief and | 1 | 2025–2025 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. K.C. (In re A.C.)
green
2 sentences2024(See Lee, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 721; In re A.C., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 672 .) Additionally, the trial court carefully examined the costs sought by the insurance defendants, and it did not award the full amount requested, declining to award costs that were unsubstantiated or duplicative. 2024(See Lee, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 721; In re A.C., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 672 .) Additionally, the trial court carefully examined the costs sought by the insurance defendants, and it did not award the full amount requested, declining to award costs that were unsubstantiated or duplicative. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016As noted in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 ]: “Whereas a federal plaintiff’s ‘injury in fact’ may be intangible and need not involve lost money or property. 2016As noted in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 ]: “Whereas a federal plaintiff’s ‘injury in fact’ may be intangible and need not involve lost money or property. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.