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.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greenfield v. Mathergreen2 sentences1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S 1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S | 3 | 5 |
Slater v. Blackwoodgreen2 sentences1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S 1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S | 3 | 4 |
McGaffey v. Sudowitzgreen2 sentences1979(See Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; Jackson v. Jackson (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1026, 1040 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]; McGaffey v. Sudowitz (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 215, 216-218 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 862 ].) We consider the Greenfield doctrine of doubtful validity and it has been severely criticized. 1979(See Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; Jackson v. Jackson (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1026, 1040 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]; McGaffey v. Sudowitz (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 215, 216-218 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 862 ].) We consider the Greenfield doctrine of doubtful validity and it has been severely criticized. | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1979(See Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; Jackson v. Jackson (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1026, 1040 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]; McGaffey v. Sudowitz (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 215, 216-218 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 862 ].) We consider the Greenfield doctrine of doubtful validity and it has been severely criticized. 1979(See Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; Jackson v. Jackson (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1026, 1040 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]; McGaffey v. Sudowitz (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 215, 216-218 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 862 ].) We consider the Greenfield doctrine of doubtful validity and it has been severely criticized. | 2 | 2 |
Wise v. DLA Piper CA4/1green1 sentence2022“While substantial evidence may inevitably consist of inferences, they must be the result of logic and reason emanating from the evidence and not mere speculation or conjecture.” (Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1283 ; Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (US) (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1188 [speculation is not evidence].) Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Greenfield’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remand this matter for the court to determine prejudgment 13 interest on the jury’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation verdicts. | 1 | 1 |
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.green1 sentence2022Standard of Review “Mitigation of damages is a question of fact, and is subject to review for the existence of substantial evidence. [Citation.][Fn. omitted.]” (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 875 (OCM).) “‘“A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light 7 Because we hold that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s finding, we need not address Greenfield’s claim that the court erred in instructing the jury on mitigation of damages or Kandeel’s clai | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S 1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S | 1 | 1 |
Hight v. Hightgreen2 sentences1979(Hight v. Hight (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 498, 503-505 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 685 ].) Appellant argues this case is one which requires the application of the Greenfield rule, basing this contention on California’s policy favoring legitimization of children born out of wedlock. 1979(Hight v. Hight (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 498, 503-505 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 685 ].) Appellant argues this case is one which requires the application of the Greenfield rule, basing this contention on California’s policy favoring legitimization of children born out of wedlock. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Slater v. Blackwoodgreen2 sentences1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S 1983(See Smith v. Smith (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 203, 209 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 492 ].) Stuart claims res judicata will not bar an action where applying it would “defeat the ends of justice or important considerations of policy.” (Greenfield v. Mather (1948) 32 Cal.2d 23, 34-35 [ 194 P.2d 1 ]; see also Smith v. Smith, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 210 ; but see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 796 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 543 P.2d 593 ].) Although we are not convinced the Greenfield rule has current validity (see Slater v. Blackwood, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 796 ), there is no injustice here in denying S | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quigley v. McClellan CA4/1
green
1 sentence2022“While substantial evidence may inevitably consist of inferences, they must be the result of logic and reason emanating from the evidence and not mere speculation or conjecture.” (Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1283 ; Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (US) (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1188 [speculation is not evidence].) Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Greenfield’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remand this matter for the court to determine prejudgment 13 interest on the jury’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation verdicts. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2022As in the trial court, the standard of review [on appeal] is whether any substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion.”’ [Citation.]” (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 192 .) “Substantial evidence is not ‘“synonymous with ‘any’ evidence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Such a brief is “wholly unacceptable.” (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011 .) We accordingly disregard the factual allegations contained therein. 3 (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 60 ; Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 477, 485 .) Greenfield’s brief also contains no legal analysis. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
City of Santa Maria v. Adam
green
2 sentences2021“Whether legal or factual, no error warrants reversal unless the appellant can show injury from the error. [Citation.]” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286 .) “[T]o demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis.” (Id. at pp. 286-287.) “[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions [they] want[] us to adopt. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 287.) The argument section of Greenfield’s 2021“Whether legal or factual, no error warrants reversal unless the appellant can show injury from the error. [Citation.]” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286 .) “[T]o demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis.” (Id. at pp. 286-287.) “[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions [they] want[] us to adopt. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 287.) The argument section of Greenfield’s | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
green
1 sentence2021Such a brief is “wholly unacceptable.” (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011 .) We accordingly disregard the factual allegations contained therein. 3 (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 60 ; Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 477, 485 .) Greenfield’s brief also contains no legal analysis. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2021(ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011 .) “One cannot simply say the [trial] court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why. [Citation.]” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 .) It is not our duty to “‘act as counsel for [Greenfield] . . . and furnish a legal argument as to how the trial court’s rulings . . . constituted an abuse of discretion’ [citation], or a mistake of law.” (Ibid.) 4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2021Such a brief is “wholly unacceptable.” (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011 .) We accordingly disregard the factual allegations contained therein. 3 (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 60 ; Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 477, 485 .) Greenfield’s brief also contains no legal analysis. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
NIKO v. Foreman
green
1 sentence2021(ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011 .) “One cannot simply say the [trial] court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why. [Citation.]” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 .) It is not our duty to “‘act as counsel for [Greenfield] . . . and furnish a legal argument as to how the trial court’s rulings . . . constituted an abuse of discretion’ [citation], or a mistake of law.” (Ibid.) 4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Styne v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2009(Greenfield, at pp. 751-753; see fn. 7, *353 ante; Styne, supra, 26 Cal.4th 42 , discussed post.) We directed the superior court to grant Greenfield’s motion for summary adjudication because Blanks had failed to timely bring his TAA cause of action before the commissioner. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Deas v. Knapp
green
2 sentences1983(See Code Civ. Proc., § 634.) Stuart points to Deas v. Knapp, supra, 29 Cal.3d 69, asserting the Supreme Court there recognized the right to relitigate fraud. 1983(See Code Civ. Proc., § 634.) Stuart points to Deas v. Knapp, supra, 29 Cal.3d 69, asserting the Supreme Court there recognized the right to relitigate fraud. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.