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 1 courts 1947–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bernstein v. Consolidated American Insurance Co.green2 sentences1997Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 763, 774 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 817 ].) Appellant also contends the court abused its discretion when it failed to provide appellant with a section 388 hearing concerning her request for a new guardianship hearing. 1997Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 763, 774 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 817 ].) Appellant also contends the court abused its discretion when it failed to provide appellant with a section 388 hearing concerning her request for a new guardianship hearing. | 2 | 2 |
Guardianship of Waitegreen1 sentence2006The court stated: "It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a party has a greater right to, or need for, his own testimony than in the type of proceeding considered here." ( Waite, supra, 14 Cal.2d at p. 730, 97 P.2d 238 .) The instant case, however, does not involve a guardianship hearing in which the sole objective is to protect the appellant. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Amanda B.green1 sentence1992These circumstances do not excuse or justify appellant's present untimely attempt to review the prior order again, by way of a writ petition considered in conjunction with the appeal of the subsequent guardianship hearing. ( In re Amanda B., supra, 3 Cal. App.4th at p. 941.) *804 APPEAL OF GUARDIANSHIP At the hearing on the petition for guardianship, the issues were whether guardianship, as distinguished from long-term foster care, should be approved, and whether the juvenile court should retain its dependency jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Loveland v. Boglioliogreen2 sentences1947(Estate of Loveland, 162 Cal. 595, 599 [ 123 P. 801 ].) This rule, of course, would not admit the testimony taken at the guardianship hearing, but, except for the small amount of testimony heretofore quoted, used in attempted impeachment without objection, none of the testimony was admitted. 1947(Estate of Loveland, 162 Cal. 595, 599 [ 123 P. 801 ].) This rule, of course, would not admit the testimony taken at the guardianship hearing, but, except for the small amount of testimony heretofore quoted, used in attempted impeachment without objection, none of the testimony was admitted. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guardianship of Case
green
2 sentences1998Because Don could not have won even if the trial court had applied the right standard, we may leave that question unanswered. [4] At the time, the "no longer necessary" ground for termination of a guardianship was codified in Probate Code section 1580, subdivision (d). [5] In the same breath the court noted that the crime was "mala prohibita," but also was "an act involving moral turpitude," yet still was not conclusive proof of a "vicious character." ( Case, supra, 57 Cal.App.2d at p. 849 , 135 P.2d 681 .) From this description one gets the idea that the crime was some sort of sexual morals c 1998Because Don could not have won even if the trial court had applied the right standard, we may leave that question unanswered. [4] At the time, the "no longer necessary" ground for termination of a guardianship was codified in Probate Code section 1580, subdivision (d). [5] In the same breath the court noted that the crime was "mala prohibita," but also was "an act involving moral turpitude," yet still was not conclusive proof of a "vicious character." ( Case, supra, 57 Cal.App.2d at p. 849 , 135 P.2d 681 .) From this description one gets the idea that the crime was some sort of sexual morals c | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Guardianship of Walters
green
1 sentence2025(Walters, supra, 37 Cal.2d at p. 244 .) Walters, like Bergloff, did not address, and therefore is not instructive on, the question whether a second contribution motion materially identical to an earlier motion but for the inclusion of postjudgment interest may rely on the timeliness of the earlier motion. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Crocker First National Bank v. Waite
neutral
1 sentence2006The court stated: "It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a party has a greater right to, or need for, his own testimony than in the type of proceeding considered here." ( Waite, supra, 14 Cal.2d at p. 730, 97 P.2d 238 .) The instant case, however, does not involve a guardianship hearing in which the sole objective is to protect the appellant. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Roche v. Roche
green
2 sentences1951The court relied on Guardianship of Mathews, supra. In the opinion in that case, at page 27, it is said: "It is well settled that, under the provisions of Section 1751 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the father or mother of a minor child under the age of fourteen years, if found by the court competent to discharge the duties of guardianship, is entitled to be appointed guardian in preference to any other person, and that the court must appoint a parent seeking to be appointed, unless it finds such parent incompetent, notwithstanding the judge is of the opinion that the child's health and welfa 1951The court relied on Guardianship of Mathews, supra. In the opinion in that case, at page 27, it is said: "It is well settled that, under the provisions of Section 1751 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the father or mother of a minor child under the age of fourteen years, if found by the court competent to discharge the duties of guardianship, is entitled to be appointed guardian in preference to any other person, and that the court must appoint a parent seeking to be appointed, unless it finds such parent incompetent, notwithstanding the judge is of the opinion that the child's health and welfa | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Newby v. Newby
green
2 sentences1951The court applied the rule that had been laid down in the earlier decisions in guardianship matters, including In re Campbell, supra, in which the courts had held that they were bound by the terms of section 1751, and Newby v. Newby, 55 Cal.App. 114 [ 202 P. 891 ], in which the guardianship rule was applied to custody cases. 1951The court applied the rule that had been laid down in the earlier decisions in guardianship matters, including In re Campbell, supra, in which the courts had held that they were bound by the terms of section 1751, and Newby v. Newby, 55 Cal.App. 114 [ 202 P. 891 ], in which the guardianship rule was applied to custody cases. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Guardianship of Cameron
green
2 sentences1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. 1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
In Re Wenman
green
2 sentences1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. 1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Wright v. Alldredge
neutral
1 sentence1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
In Re Marshall
green
1 sentence1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
In Re Livingston
green
2 sentences1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. 1949Appellant relies on In re Wenman, 33 Cal.App. 592 [ 165 P. 1024 ]; In re Marshall, 100 Cal.App. 284 [ 279 P. 834 ]; In re Livingston, 108 Cal.App. 716 [ 292 P. 285 ], and Guardianship of Cameron, 66 Cal.App.2d 884 [ 153 P.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.