75 California opinions name it 3 courts 1863–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Preston v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2001Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 111 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 624 P.2d 244 ]; Lusardi Construction Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 639, 645 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) “Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency’s interpretation is one among several tools available to the court.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 7 .) Boyd acknowledges that the issues to be considered are limited to the grounds stated in the claim for refund, and any contentions “intertwined with contentions expr 2001Appeals Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 101, 111 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 624 P.2d 244 ]; Lusardi Construction Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 639, 645 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 297 ].) “Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency’s interpretation is one among several tools available to the court.” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 7 .) Boyd acknowledges that the issues to be considered are limited to the grounds stated in the claim for refund, and any contentions “intertwined with contentions expr | 2 | 2 |
People v. Peoplesgreen2 sentences2023“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . 9 judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critic 2022“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critical | 1 | 3 |
Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blindgreen2 sentences2023“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . 9 judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critic 2022“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critical | 1 | 3 |
People v. Hestergreen2 sentences2022As stated by the California Supreme Court in Hester: “Had defendant been truly surprised at the time of sentencing to find that concurrent terms were being imposed, his remedy would have been to attempt to withdraw his plea on the grounds of violation of the plea bargain.”7 (Hester, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 296 .) The trial judge at sentencing stated all of the terms of the sentence on the record, including the fact that counts 2 and 3 would run concurrent to count 4. 2001“Had defendant been truly surprised at the time of sentencing to find that concurrent terms were being imposed, his remedy would have been to attempt to withdraw his plea on the grounds of a violation of the plea *873 bargain.” (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 296 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 , 992 P.2d 569 ].) However, in the trial court defendant raised no argument that Penal Code section 654 barred concurrent sentences. | 1 | 3 |
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.green2 sentences2020Instead, section 425.16, subdivision (f) ‘requires the court clerk to schedule a special motion to strike for a hearing no more than 30 days after the motion is served if such a hearing date is available on the court's docket, but does not require the moving party to ensure that the hearing is so scheduled and does not justify the denial of a special motion to strike solely because the motion was not scheduled for a hearing within 30 days after the motion was served.’ ” (Karnazes, at p. 352, quoting Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349 .) Payne cites his prior experience 2016However, a trial court may not properly deny an anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that the hearing was not scheduled within 30 days after service of the motion. 9 Instead, section 425.16, subdivision (f) “requires the court clerk to schedule a special motion to strike for a hearing no more than 30 days after the motion is served if such a hearing date is available on the court’s docket, but does not require the moving party to ensure that the hearing is so scheduled and does not justify the denial of a special motion to strike solely because the motion was not scheduled for a hearing within 30 | 1 | 3 |
People v. Highgreen2 sentences2015In addition to those challenges, consistent with our obligation to correct errors in the imposition of fines (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ]), the court invited the parties to brief the issue of the propriety of imposing penalty assessments against the criminal lab fee of $50 imposed as a part of the sentence on the section 11550, subdivision (a) violation. 2015In addition to those challenges, consistent with our obligation to correct errors in the imposition of fines (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ]), the court invited the parties to brief the issue of the propriety of imposing penalty assessments against the criminal lab fee of $50 imposed as a part of the sentence on the section 11550, subdivision (a) violation. | 1 | 2 |
Anthony D. v. Sup. Ct. of Orange Cty.green1 sentence2025(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; see, e.g., Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157-158 [facially inadequate petition may be summarily denied].) In any event, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Snydergreen1 sentence2023(See People v. Snyder (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1171 [“[W]hen the appellate record does not, or cannot, reflect the grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the issue is appropriately raised by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Citation.].”) We will therefore issue a separate order to show cause returnable to the trial court. 1. | 1 | 1 |
Holguin v. Dish Network LLCgreen1 sentence2016Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 81 ; accord, Holguin v. Dish Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1319 .) This required MTA to propose an instruction that correctly stated the law on the issue raised on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Kaiser Found. Hosps. v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cty.green | 1 | 1 |
Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015(Lockyer, at p. 1074; Best Products, at p. 1189; Korea Data, at pp. 1516-1517.) Accordingly, if a party responding to an inspection demand timely serves a response asserting an objection based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the trial court lacks authority to order the objection waived even if the responding party fails to serve a privilege log, serves an untimely privilege log, or serves a privilege log that fails either to adequately identify the documents to which the objection purportedly applies or provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015(Lockyer, at p. 1074; Best Products, at p. 1189; Korea Data, at pp. 1516-1517.) Accordingly, if a party responding to an inspection demand timely serves a response asserting an objection based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the trial court lacks authority to order the objection waived even if the responding party fails to serve a privilege log, serves an untimely privilege log, or serves a privilege log that fails either to adequately identify the documents to which the objection purportedly applies or provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party | 1 | 1 |
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwoodgreen1 sentence2015Finally, the court concluded a new trial was not required under McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984) 464 U.S. 548, 555-556 (McDonough), which addresses the effect of a juror’s untruthful response during voir dire where a truthful response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. | 1 | 1 |
| Metcalf v. County of San Joaquingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamongagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bohannongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lawleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hinesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Raygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lusardi Construction Co. v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Bagleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kyles v. Whitleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Popegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chi Ko Wonggreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bloomgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Guzmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Superior Court (Steven S.)green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Deeregreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Burgenergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anton v. San Antonio Community Hospitalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bradygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nelson v. Southern Pacific Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Newson v. City of Oaklandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Smith v. Keyser
neutral
2 sentences1905It was held in People v. Keyser, 53 Cal. 183 , that the defendant may, upon an appeal from the judgment without having made a motion for a new trial, rely upon any of the grounds of exception mentioned in section 1170 of the Penal Code, and, of course, we may add, when the record contains a bill of exceptions, he may likewise rely upon any of such grounds. 1902As to the bill of exceptions upon appeal from the judgment, the Penal Code provides (sec. 1259): “Upon an appeal taken by the defendant from a judgment, the court may review any intermediate order or ruling involving the merits, *373 or which may have affected the judgment.” In People v. Keyser, 53 Cal. 183 , it is said that upon an appeal from the judgment, without having made a motion for new trial, defendant may rely upon any of the grounds of exception mentioned in section 1170, but in such case he must have a bill of exceptions settled as provided in section 1171. | 3 | 1902–1917 |
People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Murray
green
2 sentences2023“The extent of cross-examination is a matter over which the trial court is given wide discretion, and the only grounds for error are an abuse of that discretion.” (People v. Murray (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 219, 232 .) The trial court did not abuse its discretion. 14 a. 2021Code §§ 762, 773, subd. (a); People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 146 .) “The extent of cross- 6 examination is a matter over which the trial court is given wide discretion, and the only grounds for error are an abuse of that discretion.” (People By and Through Department of Public Works v. Murray (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 219, 232 .) Here, KBIC’s counsel attempted to ask Hernandez on cross- examination whether he had meniscus surgery in 2018. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose
green
2 sentences2023“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . 9 judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critic 2022“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critical | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Contra Costa Cnty. Children & Family Servs. Bureau v. David B. (In re David B.)
green
2 sentences2023“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . 9 judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critic 2022“A claim is moot when the grounds for the claim no longer exist.” (People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773 .) The general rule is that “ ‘ “the duty of . . . every . . . judicial tribunal[] is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 .) As this court has previously noted, “ ‘[t]he critical | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2015Moore challenges his conviction on the grounds that his defense attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge under Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ]) the questioning of Moore during his detention by the deputy who eventually arrested him, and for failing to call an expert witness to refute evidence of Moore’s being under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant. 2015Moore challenges his conviction on the grounds that his defense attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge under Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ]) the questioning of Moore during his detention by the deputy who eventually arrested him, and for failing to call an expert witness to refute evidence of Moore’s being under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant. | 2 | 1969–2015 |
BEST PRODUCTS, INC. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2015(Lockyer, at p. 1074; Best Products, at p. 1189; Korea Data, at pp. 1516-1517.) Accordingly, if a party responding to an inspection demand timely serves a response asserting an objection based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the trial court lacks authority to order the objection waived even if the responding party fails to serve a privilege log, serves an untimely privilege log, or serves a privilege log that fails either to adequately identify the documents to which the objection purportedly applies or provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party 2004(Best Product, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1186 .) The defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate, which, as in Korea Data, the Court of Appeal granted. | 2 | 2004–2015 |
Ellenberger v. City of Oakland
green
2 sentences1949(Ellenberger v. City of Oakland, 59 Cal.App.2d 337 [ 139 P.2d 67 ].) In November, 1946, this court denied a “motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds of error, fraud or mistake.” (Ellenberger v. City of Oakland, 76 Cal.App.2d 828 [ 174 P.2d 461]; hearing by Supreme Court denied.) A comparison of those cases with ours shows that every main contention made here was considered there. 1949(Ellenberger v. City of Oakland, 59 Cal.App.2d 337 [ 139 P.2d 67 ].) In November, 1946, this court denied a “motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds of error, fraud or mistake.” (Ellenberger v. City of Oakland, 76 Cal.App.2d 828 [ 174 P.2d 461]; hearing by Supreme Court denied.) A comparison of those cases with ours shows that every main contention made here was considered there. | 2 | 1946–1949 |
Oakland Raiders v. National Football League
green
2 sentences2026Under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, upon granting a new trial, the court must “specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court’s reason or reasons for granting the new trial upon each ground stated.” According to the California Supreme Court, “[t]he word ‘ground’ refers to any of the seven grounds listed in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 657.” (Oakland Raiders, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 634 .) Whereas “[a] statement of grounds that reasonably approximates the statutory language is sufficient” (ibid.), the statement of reasons “should be specific enough to facilitat 2026Proc., § 657; Oakland Raiders, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 634 .) The order also sets forth the trial court’s detailed reasons for partially granting a new trial based on the instructional omission, further satisfying the strict statutory requirements. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
City of Miami Fire Fighters' & Police Officers' Retirement Trust v. Quality Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Background to Hussein’s Cross-Examination Claim Hussein sought to cross-examine Solomon regarding In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (9th Cir. 2017) 865 F.3d 1130 (Quality Systems). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2022The trial court, which did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis), denied the petition on the grounds that her claim is “completely inconsistent” with the facts recited in Harden I. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Abbott Laboratories v. Cordis Corporation
green
1 sentence2021Cir. 2013) 710 F.3d 1318, 1326 .) Under the new procedure, any party other than the patent owner may request to cancel one or more claims of a patent; in doing so, the petitioner is limited to grounds that could be raised under 35 United States Code sections 102 and/or 103 and only based on prior art consisting of patents and printed publications. ( 35 U.S.C. § 311 (a)-(b).) Under the IPR process, a party that wants to challenge a patent must file “a petition to institute an inter partes review of [a] patent.” ( 35 U.S.C. § 311 (a).) The petition must identify “each claim challenged,” the grou | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co.
green
1 sentence2021Code §§ 762, 773, subd. (a); People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 146 .) “The extent of cross- 6 examination is a matter over which the trial court is given wide discretion, and the only grounds for error are an abuse of that discretion.” (People By and Through Department of Public Works v. Murray (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 219, 232 .) Here, KBIC’s counsel attempted to ask Hernandez on cross- examination whether he had meniscus surgery in 2018. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Karnazes v. Ares
green
1 sentence2020As this court explained in Karnazes v. Ares (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 344 , “a trial court may not properly deny an anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that the hearing was not scheduled within 30 days after service of the motion. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 81 ; accord, Holguin v. Dish Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1319 .) This required MTA to propose an instruction that correctly stated the law on the issue raised on appeal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Guiuan
green
1 sentence2016Standard of review “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo.” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 759 , citing People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558 , 569570.) “ ‘In considering a claim of instructional error[,] we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ghebretensae
green
1 sentence2016Standard of review “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo.” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 759 , citing People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558 , 569570.) “ ‘In considering a claim of instructional error[,] we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hernandez v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2015(Lockyer, at p. 1074; Best Products, at p. 1189; Korea Data, at pp. 1516-1517.) Accordingly, if a party responding to an inspection demand timely serves a response asserting an objection based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the trial court lacks authority to order the objection waived even if the responding party fails to serve a privilege log, serves an untimely privilege log, or serves a privilege log that fails either to adequately identify the documents to which the objection purportedly applies or provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Vaca v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp.
green
1 sentence2015(Vaca v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737, 746 ; Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 990, 995 .) A claim for negligent misrepresentation must be filed within two years. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Brown v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In Re Sade C. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Alford green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Cooper green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Barnett green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalization green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Hardy green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Barnett green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Osband green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Ghent green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Gonzalez red | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Walker green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Griffin v. California green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Washington Ex Rel. Blakeslee v. Horton green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Giannuzzi v. State of California green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Beck v. Unruh green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Hackethal v. California Medical Assn. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Hosner green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Miller v. Glass green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.