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 1962–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nwosu v. Ubagreen2 sentences2020(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu) [party’s argument deemed forfeited if not supported by necessary citations to the record].) This is particularly true as LAUSD contends only two of the five bonds that were the subject of Western’s motion had such limitations periods. 2020(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu) [party’s argument deemed forfeited if not supported by necessary citations to the record].) This is particularly true as LAUSD contends only two of the five bonds that were the subject of Western’s motion had such limitations periods. | 2 | 2 |
Save Lafayette Trees v. East Bay Regional Park Dist.green2 sentences2021The administrative record makes clear that, in approving the building of the road, the City Council was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th 21 .) Moreover, in considering the “location of a public improvement” (Oceanside legislative capacity in broadly considering the interest of the public generally and was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 55.) 78 Marina Towers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 747 ), the City Council h 2021The administrative record makes clear that, in approving the building of the road, the City Council was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th 21 .) Moreover, in considering the “location of a public improvement” (Oceanside legislative capacity in broadly considering the interest of the public generally and was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 55.) 78 Marina Towers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 747 ), the City Council h | 1 | 1 |
USLIFE Savings & Loan Ass'n v. National Surety Corp.green2 sentences2007(See USLIFE Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Surety Corp. (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 336, 343 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] [facts, events, documents or other matters urged by party not admitted into evidence cannot be included in the record on appeal and are outside scope of review].) In Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 278 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 ], Western’s brief relied on new trial motion exhibits. 2007(See USLIFE Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Surety Corp. (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 336, 343 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] [facts, events, documents or other matters urged by party not admitted into evidence cannot be included in the record on appeal and are outside scope of review].) In Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 278 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 ], Western’s brief relied on new trial motion exhibits. | 1 | 1 |
Horn v. County of Venturagreen2 sentences2006As *622 the state Supreme Court remarked in rejecting a similar claim, “[o]ne need not exhaust inadequate remedies in order to challenge their sufficiency.” (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 611 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 596 P.2d 1134 ] (Horn).) That brings us to the substance of Western’s appeal involving the fifth cause of action: Is the vested rights determination regarding Western’s surface mining operation as to the 3,430 acres subject to procedural due process requirements of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard? 2006As *622 the state Supreme Court remarked in rejecting a similar claim, “[o]ne need not exhaust inadequate remedies in order to challenge their sufficiency.” (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 611 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 596 P.2d 1134 ] (Horn).) That brings us to the substance of Western’s appeal involving the fifth cause of action: Is the vested rights determination regarding Western’s surface mining operation as to the 3,430 acres subject to procedural due process requirements of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard? | 1 | 1 |
Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Churchgreen2 sentences2002(Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 706 [ 336 P.2d 525 ] (Ernie).) Western’s brief leaves the reader mystified as to what was introduced at trial and why critical evidence was not. 2002(Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 706 [ 336 P.2d 525 ] (Ernie).) Western’s brief leaves the reader mystified as to what was introduced at trial and why critical evidence was not. | 1 | 1 |
County of El Dorado v. Misuragreen2 sentences2002(County of El Dorado v. Misura (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 73, 77 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 ].) In litigation between private parties, the County Superior Court issued a judgment finding an historical road had existed. 2002(County of El Dorado v. Misura (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 73, 77 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 ].) In litigation between private parties, the County Superior Court issued a judgment finding an historical road had existed. | 1 | 1 |
Ascherman v. Natansongreen2 sentences1987Rev. at p. 468.) First Western’s defense of absolute privilege emphasizes the phrase “in any other official proceeding authorized by law.” Our courts interpret this language to encompass “those proceedings which resemble judicial and legislative proceedings, such as transactions of administrative boards and quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative proceedings.” (Ascherman v. Natanson (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 861, 865 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 656 ].) Three primary factors determine the nature of these proceedings: (1) whether the administrative body is vested with discretion based upon investigation and conside 1987Rev. at p. 468.) First Western’s defense of absolute privilege emphasizes the phrase “in any other official proceeding authorized by law.” Our courts interpret this language to encompass “those proceedings which resemble judicial and legislative proceedings, such as transactions of administrative boards and quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative proceedings.” (Ascherman v. Natanson (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 861, 865 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 656 ].) Three primary factors determine the nature of these proceedings: (1) whether the administrative body is vested with discretion based upon investigation and conside | 1 | 1 |
Voorheis v. Hawthorne-Michaels Co.green2 sentences1962(Voorheis v. Hawthorne-Michaels Co., 151 Cal. App.2d 688, 694 [ 312 P.2d 51 ].) Moreover, a sufficient foundation had not been laid. 1962(Voorheis v. Hawthorne-Michaels Co., 151 Cal. App.2d 688, 694 [ 312 P.2d 51 ].) Moreover, a sufficient foundation had not been laid. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Calbeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach
green
2 sentences2021Rather than apply the Western States framework and analyze the nature of the underlying actions evaluated in the FEIR, Save Civita broadly argues that “[w]here the agency’s CEQA determination requires it to make findings, . . . section 21168 applies.” (Citing Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 729 ; CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529, 539 .) Neither case holds that section 21168 applies whenever an agency is required to make findings. 2021Rather than apply the Western States framework and analyze the nature of the underlying actions evaluated in the FEIR, Save Civita broadly argues that “[w]here the agency’s CEQA determination requires it to make findings, . . . section 21168 applies.” (Citing Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 729 ; CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529, 539 .) Neither case holds that section 21168 applies whenever an agency is required to make findings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ass'n for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of Ukiah
green
2 sentences2021Rather than apply the Western States framework and analyze the nature of the underlying actions evaluated in the FEIR, Save Civita broadly argues that “[w]here the agency’s CEQA determination requires it to make findings, . . . section 21168 applies.” (Citing Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 729 ; CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529, 539 .) Neither case holds that section 21168 applies whenever an agency is required to make findings. 2021Rather than apply the Western States framework and analyze the nature of the underlying actions evaluated in the FEIR, Save Civita broadly argues that “[w]here the agency’s CEQA determination requires it to make findings, . . . section 21168 applies.” (Citing Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 729 ; CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 529, 539 .) Neither case holds that section 21168 applies whenever an agency is required to make findings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Oceanside Marina Towers Ass'n v. Oceanside Community Development Commission
green
2 sentences2021The administrative record makes clear that, in approving the building of the road, the City Council was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th 21 .) Moreover, in considering the “location of a public improvement” (Oceanside legislative capacity in broadly considering the interest of the public generally and was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 55.) 78 Marina Towers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 747 ), the City Council h 2021The administrative record makes clear that, in approving the building of the road, the City Council was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th 21 .) Moreover, in considering the “location of a public improvement” (Oceanside legislative capacity in broadly considering the interest of the public generally and was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 55.) 78 Marina Towers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 747 ), the City Council h | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence2021A slightly different standard applies to this claim: “[W]hen deciding whether an error of instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must also evaluate (1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 , 580- 581, fn. omitted.) As to the first factor, based on our analysis above, we find it weighs heavily in favor of ReadyLink. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera
red
2 sentences2021(See Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 566 ; Madera, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p.76; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act, (Cont.Ed.Bar. 2021) Is Review Governed by Pub Res C §21168 or §21168.5?, § 23.41(c) [explaining that under Western States, “When an agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-adjudicative act] under [Code of Civil Procedure section] 1094.5, [section] 21168 governs review of the related CEQA determination,” but that “when the agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-legislative act 2021(See Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 566 ; Madera, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p.76; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act, (Cont.Ed.Bar. 2021) Is Review Governed by Pub Res C §21168 or §21168.5?, § 23.41(c) [explaining that under Western States, “When an agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-adjudicative act] under [Code of Civil Procedure section] 1094.5, [section] 21168 governs review of the related CEQA determination,” but that “when the agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-legislative act | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2021(See Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 566 ; Madera, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p.76; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act, (Cont.Ed.Bar. 2021) Is Review Governed by Pub Res C §21168 or §21168.5?, § 23.41(c) [explaining that under Western States, “When an agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-adjudicative act] under [Code of Civil Procedure section] 1094.5, [section] 21168 governs review of the related CEQA determination,” but that “when the agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-legislative act 2021(See Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 566 ; Madera, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p.76; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act, (Cont.Ed.Bar. 2021) Is Review Governed by Pub Res C §21168 or §21168.5?, § 23.41(c) [explaining that under Western States, “When an agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-adjudicative act] under [Code of Civil Procedure section] 1094.5, [section] 21168 governs review of the related CEQA determination,” but that “when the agency’s decision on the merits of a project is reviewable [as a quasi-legislative act | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Quinchard v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2021The administrative record makes clear that, in approving the building of the road, the City Council was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th 21 .) Moreover, in considering the “location of a public improvement” (Oceanside legislative capacity in broadly considering the interest of the public generally and was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 55.) 78 Marina Towers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 747 ), the City Council h 2021The administrative record makes clear that, in approving the building of the road, the City Council was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th 21 .) Moreover, in considering the “location of a public improvement” (Oceanside legislative capacity in broadly considering the interest of the public generally and was not “limited to a consideration of the interests of nearby property owners.” (Save Lafayette Trees, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 55.) 78 Marina Towers, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 747 ), the City Council h | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba
green
2 sentences2007(See USLIFE Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Surety Corp. (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 336, 343 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] [facts, events, documents or other matters urged by party not admitted into evidence cannot be included in the record on appeal and are outside scope of review].) In Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 278 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 ], Western’s brief relied on new trial motion exhibits. 2007(See USLIFE Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Surety Corp. (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 336, 343 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] [facts, events, documents or other matters urged by party not admitted into evidence cannot be included in the record on appeal and are outside scope of review].) In Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 278 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 ], Western’s brief relied on new trial motion exhibits. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Syverson v. Heitmann
green
2 sentences1997The trial court granted the homeowners’ motion, denied Western’s motion and, citing Syverson v. Heitmann (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 106 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 581 ], awarded the homeowners all of their section 1032 costs as the prevailing parties. 1997The trial court granted the homeowners’ motion, denied Western’s motion and, citing Syverson v. Heitmann (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 106 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 581 ], awarded the homeowners all of their section 1032 costs as the prevailing parties. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. City of Turlock
green
1 sentence1987Co. v. City of Turlock (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 988, 994 .) We have already decided First Western’s defense of absolute privilege fails and that there are triable issues as to the truth of the proof of loss statement and the basis for Prevost’s dismissal. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.