10 California opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wittenburg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Ass'ngreen2 sentences2023Rather, it is clear that these legislative history materials have been published, and, as such, there is no need for this court to take judicial notice of these materials: “A motion for judicial notice of published legislative history, such as the Senate analysis here, is unnecessary. [Citation.] ‘Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.’ [Citation.]” (Wittenberg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Assn. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, 665, fn. 4 , quoting Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaran 2023Rather, it is clear that these legislative history materials have been published, and, as such, there is no need for this court to take judicial notice of these materials: “A motion for judicial notice of published legislative history, such as the Senate analysis here, is unnecessary. [Citation.] ‘Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.’ [Citation.]” (Wittenberg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Assn. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, 665, fn. 4 , quoting Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaran | 3 | 3 |
Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.green2 sentences2023Rather, it is clear that these legislative history materials have been published, and, as such, there is no need for this court to take judicial notice of these materials: “A motion for judicial notice of published legislative history, such as the Senate analysis here, is unnecessary. [Citation.] ‘Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.’ [Citation.]” (Wittenberg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Assn. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, 665, fn. 4 , quoting Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaran 2023Rather, it is clear that these legislative history materials have been published, and, as such, there is no need for this court to take judicial notice of these materials: “A motion for judicial notice of published legislative history, such as the Senate analysis here, is unnecessary. [Citation.] ‘Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.’ [Citation.]” (Wittenberg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Assn. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, 665, fn. 4 , quoting Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaran | 2 | 3 |
Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2000This bill would instead require summary adjudication of issues only where an entire cause of action, affirmative defense or claim for punitive damages can be resolved, [¶] . . . [¶] The sponsor believes that the bill will save court time, reduce the cost of litigation for plaintiffs and defendants, and reduce the opportunity for abuse of the summary judgment procedure.’ The August 1990, report of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary adopted the Senate’s analysis.” (Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1853-1854.) The appellate court in Lilienthal found that the po 1996This bill would instead require summary adjudication of issues only where an entire cause of action, affirmative defense or claim for punitive damages can be resolved. . . .’ The August 1990, report of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary adopted the Senate’s analysis.” (Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1853-1854 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 458 ].) Moreover, we are unaware of anything in the legislative history of the 1990 amendment which indicates an intent to permit summary adjudication of only one component of the damages element of a cause of action, which does not dis | 1 | 2 |
KAUFMAN & BROAD v. Performance Plasteringgreen2 sentences2023(See Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26, 37 [identifying list of documents that have been held to constitute cognizable legislative history as including bill histories, legislative committee reports and analyses, bill digests, Office of Assembly Floor Analyses, and Office of Senate Floor Analyses].) As we discuss further in part II.B.2., post, we consider various aspects of the legislative history of section 2830, insofar as it is helpful to our 25 understanding of the Legislature’s intentions in creating the RES-BCT program. 2023(See Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26, 37 [identifying list of documents that have been held to constitute cognizable legislative history as including bill histories, legislative committee reports and analyses, bill digests, Office of Assembly Floor Analyses, and Office of Senate Floor Analyses].) As we discuss further in part II.B.2., post, we consider various aspects of the legislative history of section 2830, insofar as it is helpful to our 25 understanding of the Legislature’s intentions in creating the RES-BCT program. | 1 | 1 |
Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. United States, Inc.green2 sentences2023USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 755 [“Legislative history, even when appropriately considered, cannot be used to contradict language that the Legislature decided to include in the statute.”].) In any event, the passage relied upon by appellant actually refers to a separate part of the enactment relating to a resentencing petition “when a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years. . .” (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1)(A 2023USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 755 [“Legislative history, even when appropriately considered, cannot be used to contradict language that the Legislature decided to include in the statute.”].) In any event, the passage relied upon by appellant actually refers to a separate part of the enactment relating to a resentencing petition “when a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years. . .” (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1)(A | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thornburg v. Gingles
green
2 sentences2023Code, § 14027; cf. 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (b) [“opportunity . . . to elect representatives of their choice”]), but 3 The Senate factors include “the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions aga 2023Code, § 14027; cf. 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (b) [“opportunity . . . to elect representatives of their choice”]), but 3 The Senate factors include “the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions aga | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Buckland v. Threshold Enterprises, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2015Code, § 17204.) 7 We need not and do not conclude that plaintiff will ultimately persuade the court that the expenditure of resources had a purpose independent of the current litigation and were not expenditures made to “ ‘manufacture the injury.’ ” (Buckland, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 815 .) We hold only that plaintiff’s showing regarding standing is sufficient to defeat the defendants’ special motion to strike. 8 Although the Equal Rights Center case did not frame this aspect of the standing issue as a causation analysis, the reasoning of the case is applicable to show satisfaction of the 2015Code, § 17204.) 7 We need not and do not conclude that plaintiff will ultimately persuade the court that the expenditure of resources had a purpose independent of the current litigation and were not expenditures made to “ ‘manufacture the injury.’ ” (Buckland, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 815 .) We hold only that plaintiff’s showing regarding standing is sufficient to defeat the defendants’ special motion to strike. 8 Although the Equal Rights Center case did not frame this aspect of the standing issue as a causation analysis, the reasoning of the case is applicable to show satisfaction of the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Stanson v. Mott
green
2 sentences2013(Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 45-46, fn. 9 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 , 960 P.2d 513 ].) “Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.” (Id. at p. 46, fn. 9.) 5 The parties debate whether we should interpret “advocating” as synonymous with “campaigning” as that term is used in the line of cases holding a public entity may not use public funds for “campaigning.” (See, e.g., Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 551 P.2d 1 ]; Vargas 2013(Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 45-46, fn. 9 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 , 960 P.2d 513 ].) “Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.” (Id. at p. 46, fn. 9.) 5 The parties debate whether we should interpret “advocating” as synonymous with “campaigning” as that term is used in the line of cases holding a public entity may not use public funds for “campaigning.” (See, e.g., Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 551 P.2d 1 ]; Vargas | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Vargas v. City of Salinas
green
2 sentences2013(Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 45-46, fn. 9 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 , 960 P.2d 513 ].) “Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.” (Id. at p. 46, fn. 9.) 5 The parties debate whether we should interpret “advocating” as synonymous with “campaigning” as that term is used in the line of cases holding a public entity may not use public funds for “campaigning.” (See, e.g., Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 551 P.2d 1 ]; Vargas 2013(Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 45-46, fn. 9 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 , 960 P.2d 513 ].) “Citation to the material is sufficient. [Citation.] We therefore consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are published.” (Id. at p. 46, fn. 9.) 5 The parties debate whether we should interpret “advocating” as synonymous with “campaigning” as that term is used in the line of cases holding a public entity may not use public funds for “campaigning.” (See, e.g., Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 551 P.2d 1 ]; Vargas | 1 | 2013–2013 |
20th Century Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2005Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at page 1267 , quoting a Senate analysis of Senate Bill No. 1899. 40 20th Century Ins. 2005Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at page 1267 , quoting a Senate analysis of Senate Bill No. 1899. 40 20th Century Ins. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates
green
2 sentences2000Thus Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) could properly be utilized to challenge the separate and distinct matter even though the real parties in interest combined it with an unrelated matter in the same cause of action. (12 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1854-1855.) The appellate court in Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 508 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 708 ] agreed with the reasoning found in the Lillienthal case. 2000Thus Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) could properly be utilized to challenge the separate and distinct matter even though the real parties in interest combined it with an unrelated matter in the same cause of action. (12 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1854-1855.) The appellate court in Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 508 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 708 ] agreed with the reasoning found in the Lillienthal case. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.