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 1912–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Goldsteingreen2 sentences1983(See People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ]; People v. Goldstein (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1039-1040 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].) This proposed new rule is overbroad and misses the point. 1983(See People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ]; People v. Goldstein (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1039-1040 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].) This proposed new rule is overbroad and misses the point. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maddengreen2 sentences1983(See People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ]; People v. Goldstein (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1039-1040 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].) This proposed new rule is overbroad and misses the point. 1983(See People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ]; People v. Goldstein (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1039-1040 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].) This proposed new rule is overbroad and misses the point. | 2 | 2 |
Peterson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1995It is "the general rule that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation." ( Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 151 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ], fn. omitted.) Significantly, the only holdings inconsistent with the rule are by intermediate appellate courts. ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174 where there was no recorded uniform plan at all and Riley 1995It is "the general rule that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation." ( Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 151 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ], fn. omitted.) Significantly, the only holdings inconsistent with the rule are by intermediate appellate courts. ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174 where there was no recorded uniform plan at all and Riley | 1 | 1 |
Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp.green2 sentences1995(Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174—where there was no recorded uniform plan at all—and Riley, supra, 17 Cal.3d 500— where the restrictions were recorded after the sale. 1995(Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174—where there was no recorded uniform plan at all—and Riley, supra, 17 Cal.3d 500— where the restrictions were recorded after the sale. | 1 | 1 |
Mock v. Santa Monica Hospitalgreen2 sentences1976This proposed new doctrine would conflict with the firmly established rule that "a litigant who relies on facts in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations bears the burden of proving such facts [citations]." ( De Vault v. Logan (1963) 223 Cal. App.2d 802, 809 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 145 ].) In Mock v. Santa Monica Hospital (1960) 187 Cal. App.2d 57, 64-65 [ 9 Cal. Rptr. 555 ], the court stated: "In order to show that his cause of action is not barred where the act of the defendant ... occurred more than a year before the commencement of the action, the plaintiff must state in *107 his com 1976This proposed new doctrine would conflict with the firmly established rule that "a litigant who relies on facts in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations bears the burden of proving such facts [citations]." ( De Vault v. Logan (1963) 223 Cal. App.2d 802, 809 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 145 ].) In Mock v. Santa Monica Hospital (1960) 187 Cal. App.2d 57, 64-65 [ 9 Cal. Rptr. 555 ], the court stated: "In order to show that his cause of action is not barred where the act of the defendant ... occurred more than a year before the commencement of the action, the plaintiff must state in *107 his com | 1 | 1 |
DeVault v. Logangreen2 sentences1976This proposed new doctrine would conflict with the firmly established rule that "a litigant who relies on facts in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations bears the burden of proving such facts [citations]." ( De Vault v. Logan (1963) 223 Cal. App.2d 802, 809 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 145 ].) In Mock v. Santa Monica Hospital (1960) 187 Cal. App.2d 57, 64-65 [ 9 Cal. Rptr. 555 ], the court stated: "In order to show that his cause of action is not barred where the act of the defendant ... occurred more than a year before the commencement of the action, the plaintiff must state in *107 his com 1976This proposed new doctrine would conflict with the firmly established rule that "a litigant who relies on facts in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations bears the burden of proving such facts [citations]." ( De Vault v. Logan (1963) 223 Cal. App.2d 802, 809 [ 36 Cal. Rptr. 145 ].) In Mock v. Santa Monica Hospital (1960) 187 Cal. App.2d 57, 64-65 [ 9 Cal. Rptr. 555 ], the court stated: "In order to show that his cause of action is not barred where the act of the defendant ... occurred more than a year before the commencement of the action, the plaintiff must state in *107 his com | 1 | 1 |
Neher v. Kauffmangreen2 sentences1934“But aside from this, no error can be predicated upon this ruling for the reason that the defendant never prepared or tendered for filing any proposed amendment.” (Neher v. Kauffman, 197 Cal. 674, 686 [ 242 Pac. 713, 718 ].) The findings are amply supported by the evidence and the findings support the judgment of the trial court. 1934“But aside from this, no error can be predicated upon this ruling for the reason that the defendant never prepared or tendered for filing any proposed amendment.” (Neher v. Kauffman, 197 Cal. 674, 686 [ 242 Pac. 713, 718 ].) The findings are amply supported by the evidence and the findings support the judgment of the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2023Though leave to amend a complaint is “ ‘entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242 ), the situation here calls for the application of a legal doctrine to undisputed facts, so we will undertake a de novo review. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Snatchko v. Westfield llC
green
1 sentence2014While, as the Costas point out, the motion to amend was filed six weeks before the summary judgment motion was filed, and while the 24 Secretary did engage in some discovery regarding the proposed new claim, it would be patently unreasonable to expect the Secretary to preemptively challenge the Costas’ proposed police power claim in a motion for summary judgment, the scope of which is delimited by the pleadings (see Snatchko v. Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 477 ), which at that time did not include a police power claim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Werner v. Graham
green
2 sentences1995(Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174—where there was no recorded uniform plan at all—and Riley, supra, 17 Cal.3d 500— where the restrictions were recorded after the sale. 1995It is "the general rule that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation." ( Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 151 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ], fn. omitted.) Significantly, the only holdings inconsistent with the rule are by intermediate appellate courts. ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174 where there was no recorded uniform plan at all and Riley | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Riley v. Bear Creek Planning Committee
green
2 sentences1995(Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174—where there was no recorded uniform plan at all—and Riley, supra, 17 Cal.3d 500— where the restrictions were recorded after the sale. 1995It is "the general rule that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation." ( Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 151 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 642 P.2d 1305 ], fn. omitted.) Significantly, the only holdings inconsistent with the rule are by intermediate appellate courts. ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 986 [ 258 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) The proposed new rule is fully consistent with the facts of both Werner, supra, 181 Cal. 174 where there was no recorded uniform plan at all and Riley | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Tideman
green
2 sentences1984In our case, if the act proved to be a 19406 violation is the same act proved to be a violation of 19405, then defendant is entitled to the protection afforded by Penal Code section 654 (see Tide-man, supra, 57 Cal.2d 574, 584-587 ), but neither the statutes nor the accusatory pleading here compels the conclusion the section 19405 violation was a necessarily included offense of the 19406 violation. 1984In our case, if the act proved to be a 19406 violation is the same act proved to be a violation of 19405, then defendant is entitled to the protection afforded by Penal Code section 654 (see Tide-man, supra, 57 Cal.2d 574, 584-587 ), but neither the statutes nor the accusatory pleading here compels the conclusion the section 19405 violation was a necessarily included offense of the 19406 violation. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Leonard T. Robinson, United States of America v. James E. McCaffity United States of America v. Louis Johnson
green
1 sentence1981I have no quarrel with the efforts of my colleagues of the majority as they seek to articulate a broad rule which would permit counsel "to ask questions reasonably designed to assist in the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges ..." ( ante, *415 p. 407), and to preserve considerable discretion of "the trial court to contain voir dire within reasonable limits." ( Ibid. ) Similarly, I agree with my colleague of the concurrence who points to the lack of specificity of the proposed new standard and the broad generality of the analysis and test advanced in extended fashion by the majority. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Callan v. Bull
green
2 sentences1912It was sought thereby to bring the case within the doctrine declared in Callan v. Bull, 113 Cal. 593, 598 , [ 45 Pac. 1017 ], as follows: “The master’s liability for the negligence of his servant rests upon his right to select the servant and to control his work, but, when this selection and control rests in another, he is freed from such liability. 1912It was sought thereby to bring the case within the doctrine declared in Callan v. Bull, 113 Cal. 593, 598 , [ 45 Pac. 1017 ], as follows: “The master’s liability for the negligence of his servant rests upon his right to select the servant and to control his work, but, when this selection and control rests in another, he is freed from such liability. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.