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 1950–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. Fostergreen2 sentences1955However, it has been said that the change of circumstances rule “is not an ironclad rule to which there can be no exceptions.’’ (Cowen v. Cowen, 100 Cal.App.2d 366, 370 [ 223 P.2d 666 ]; Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ].) The welfare and best interests of the children is the all-important consideration in custody cases. 1955However, it has been said that the change of circumstances rule “is not an ironclad rule to which there can be no exceptions.’’ (Cowen v. Cowen, 100 Cal.App.2d 366, 370 [ 223 P.2d 666 ]; Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ].) The welfare and best interests of the children is the all-important consideration in custody cases. | 2 | 3 |
Bernstein v. Bernsteingreen2 sentences1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. 1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. | 2 | 2 |
Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1996The addition of ‘s’ to ‘defendant’ in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word ‘defendants’ to those sued by their correct names.” (Hogan, California’s Unique Doe Defendant Practice: A Fiction Stranger Than Truth (1977) 30 Stan.L.Rev. 51, 80, fns. omitted; see Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 186, 194-196 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] [charging allegations referring to “defendants” embraced Doe defendants; amendment related back]; Milam v. Dickman Construction Co. (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 208, 213-214 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 130 ] [allegati 1996The addition of ‘s’ to ‘defendant’ in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word ‘defendants’ to those sued by their correct names.” (Hogan, California’s Unique Doe Defendant Practice: A Fiction Stranger Than Truth (1977) 30 Stan.L.Rev. 51, 80, fns. omitted; see Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 186, 194-196 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] [charging allegations referring to “defendants” embraced Doe defendants; amendment related back]; Milam v. Dickman Construction Co. (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 208, 213-214 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 130 ] [allegati | 1 | 1 |
Milam v. Dickman Construction Co.green2 sentences1996The addition of ‘s’ to ‘defendant’ in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word ‘defendants’ to those sued by their correct names.” (Hogan, California’s Unique Doe Defendant Practice: A Fiction Stranger Than Truth (1977) 30 Stan.L.Rev. 51, 80, fns. omitted; see Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 186, 194-196 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] [charging allegations referring to “defendants” embraced Doe defendants; amendment related back]; Milam v. Dickman Construction Co. (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 208, 213-214 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 130 ] [allegati 1996The addition of ‘s’ to ‘defendant’ in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word ‘defendants’ to those sued by their correct names.” (Hogan, California’s Unique Doe Defendant Practice: A Fiction Stranger Than Truth (1977) 30 Stan.L.Rev. 51, 80, fns. omitted; see Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 186, 194-196 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] [charging allegations referring to “defendants” embraced Doe defendants; amendment related back]; Milam v. Dickman Construction Co. (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 208, 213-214 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 130 ] [allegati | 1 | 1 |
Marasco v. Wadsworthgreen1 sentence1996The addition of ‘s’ to ‘defendant’ in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word ‘defendants’ to those sued by their correct names.” (Hogan, California’s Unique Doe Defendant Practice: A Fiction Stranger Than Truth (1977) 30 Stan.L.Rev. 51, 80, fns. omitted; see Hollister Canning Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 186, 194-196 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] [charging allegations referring to “defendants” embraced Doe defendants; amendment related back]; Milam v. Dickman Construction Co. (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 208, 213-214 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 130 ] [allegati | 1 | 1 |
Pac. Etc. Dev. Corp. v. Western Pac. RR Co.green1 sentence1987Rather, it is reasonably clear from the court's extensive recitation of the facts in its discussion of estoppel, that the decision was based simply on the grounds that the facts did not establish an estoppel. (47 Cal.2d at pp. 70-71.) The equities in favor of the plaintiff brokerage firm were not compelling: it had entered the negotiations late and apparently had contributed little to what Nelson had already accomplished while employed by Fortune Realty; furthermore, as the court noted, "no option to purchase at $2,500 per acre was ever obtained," and finally, there was no unjust enrichment, s | 1 | 1 |
Cabell v. John H.green2 sentences1980(Pp. 564-565.) The argument that In re Aline D., supra, 14 Cal.3d 557 , sets forth an ironclad rule that a Youth Authority commitment must invariably be preceded by less restrictive placements, was recently rejected by the California Supreme Court in In re John H. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 18, 27 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 357 , 557 P.2d 177 ]. 1980(Pp. 564-565.) The argument that In re Aline D., supra, 14 Cal.3d 557 , sets forth an ironclad rule that a Youth Authority commitment must invariably be preceded by less restrictive placements, was recently rejected by the California Supreme Court in In re John H. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 18, 27 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 357 , 557 P.2d 177 ]. | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Petersongreen2 sentences1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. 1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. | 1 | 1 |
Bemis v. Bemisgreen2 sentences1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. 1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. | 1 | 1 |
Disney v. Disneygreen2 sentences1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. 1956(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ] ; Peterson v. Peterson, 64 Cal.App.2d 631, 633 [ 149 P.2d 206 ]; Bemis v. Bemis, 89 Cal.App.2d 80, 91 [ 200 P.2d 84 ]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ]; Disney v. Disney, 121 Cal.App.2d 602, 607 [ 263 P.2d 865 ].) The father appeared in and contested the Idaho action. | 1 | 1 |
Newman v. Newmangreen2 sentences1955(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [ 68 P.2d 719 ]; Johnson v. Johnson, 72 Cal.App.2d 721 [ 165 P.2d 552 ]; Newman v. Newman, 109 Cal.App.2d 359 at 360 [ 240 P.2d 682 ].) It is true that Judge Cotton did not follow out the desire expressed in Judge Maushart’s opinion that the -children should be given an opportunity to express an intelligent opinion as to their preference. 1955(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [ 68 P.2d 719 ]; Johnson v. Johnson, 72 Cal.App.2d 721 [ 165 P.2d 552 ]; Newman v. Newman, 109 Cal.App.2d 359 at 360 [ 240 P.2d 682 ].) It is true that Judge Cotton did not follow out the desire expressed in Judge Maushart’s opinion that the -children should be given an opportunity to express an intelligent opinion as to their preference. | 1 | 1 |
Cowen v. Cowengreen2 sentences1955However, it has been said that the change of circumstances rule “is not an ironclad rule to which there can be no exceptions.’’ (Cowen v. Cowen, 100 Cal.App.2d 366, 370 [ 223 P.2d 666 ]; Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ].) The welfare and best interests of the children is the all-important consideration in custody cases. 1955However, it has been said that the change of circumstances rule “is not an ironclad rule to which there can be no exceptions.’’ (Cowen v. Cowen, 100 Cal.App.2d 366, 370 [ 223 P.2d 666 ]; Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719, 728 [ 68 P.2d 719 ].) The welfare and best interests of the children is the all-important consideration in custody cases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fraley v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2013Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1282 , cited by Rick Concrete, does not create such an ironclad rule. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Winding Creek v. McGlashan
green
2 sentences2013The addition of “s” to “defendant” in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word “defendants” to those sued by their correct names.’ [Citations.]” (Winding Creek v. McGlashan (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 933, 941 , fn. omitted (Winding Creek).) 4 In Winding Creek, “every single cause of action stated in [the original complaint] incorporated by reference plaintiffs’ allegation that ‘. . . each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurances [sic] herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proxima 2013The addition of “s” to “defendant” in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word “defendants” to those sued by their correct names.’ [Citations.]” (Winding Creek v. McGlashan (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 933, 941 , fn. omitted (Winding Creek).) 4 In Winding Creek, “every single cause of action stated in [the original complaint] incorporated by reference plaintiffs’ allegation that ‘. . . each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurances [sic] herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proxima | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Barnes v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2013The addition of “s” to “defendant” in the charging allegations will suffice as long as the complaint does not limit the word “defendants” to those sued by their correct names.’ [Citations.]” (Winding Creek v. McGlashan (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 933, 941 , fn. omitted (Winding Creek).) 4 In Winding Creek, “every single cause of action stated in [the original complaint] incorporated by reference plaintiffs’ allegation that ‘. . . each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurances [sic] herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proxima | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Beazell v. Schrader
green
2 sentences1987Rather, it is reasonably clear from the court's extensive recitation of the facts in its discussion of estoppel, that the decision was based simply on the grounds that the facts did not establish an estoppel. (47 Cal.2d at pp. 70-71.) The equities in favor of the plaintiff brokerage firm were not compelling: it had entered the negotiations late and apparently had contributed little to what Nelson had already accomplished while employed by Fortune Realty; furthermore, as the court noted, "no option to purchase at $2,500 per acre was ever obtained," and finally, there was no unjust enrichment, s 1987Rather, it is reasonably clear from the court's extensive recitation of the facts in its discussion of estoppel, that the decision was based simply on the grounds that the facts did not establish an estoppel. (47 Cal.2d at pp. 70-71.) The equities in favor of the plaintiff brokerage firm were not compelling: it had entered the negotiations late and apparently had contributed little to what Nelson had already accomplished while employed by Fortune Realty; furthermore, as the court noted, "no option to purchase at $2,500 per acre was ever obtained," and finally, there was no unjust enrichment, s | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Franklin v. Hansen
green
2 sentences1987Rather, it is reasonably clear from the court's extensive recitation of the facts in its discussion of estoppel, that the decision was based simply on the grounds that the facts did not establish an estoppel. (47 Cal.2d at pp. 70-71.) The equities in favor of the plaintiff brokerage firm were not compelling: it had entered the negotiations late and apparently had contributed little to what Nelson had already accomplished while employed by Fortune Realty; furthermore, as the court noted, "no option to purchase at $2,500 per acre was ever obtained," and finally, there was no unjust enrichment, s 1987Rather, it is reasonably clear from the court's extensive recitation of the facts in its discussion of estoppel, that the decision was based simply on the grounds that the facts did not establish an estoppel. (47 Cal.2d at pp. 70-71.) The equities in favor of the plaintiff brokerage firm were not compelling: it had entered the negotiations late and apparently had contributed little to what Nelson had already accomplished while employed by Fortune Realty; furthermore, as the court noted, "no option to purchase at $2,500 per acre was ever obtained," and finally, there was no unjust enrichment, s | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Kaiser Foundation Hosp. v. WORKERS'COMP. APPEALS BD.
green
1 sentence1985Such statutes are intended to afford “finality and predictability in legal affairs, and [to ensure] that claims will be resolved while the evidence bearing on the issues is reasonably available and fresh.” (Kaiser (Webb), supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 336 .) The related notice statutes (§§ 138.3, 138.4, 5402) demonstrate a legislative decision that the policies underlying the statute of limitations are outweighed when an employer with knowledge of an injury breaches its duty to advise, and the employee is unaware of workers’ compensation. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Kirkpatrick v. Aline D.
green
1 sentence1980(Pp. 564-565.) The argument that In re Aline D., supra, 14 Cal.3d 557 , sets forth an ironclad rule that a Youth Authority commitment must invariably be preceded by less restrictive placements, was recently rejected by the California Supreme Court in In re John H. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 18, 27 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 357 , 557 P.2d 177 ]. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Johnson v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1955(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [ 68 P.2d 719 ]; Johnson v. Johnson, 72 Cal.App.2d 721 [ 165 P.2d 552 ]; Newman v. Newman, 109 Cal.App.2d 359 at 360 [ 240 P.2d 682 ].) It is true that Judge Cotton did not follow out the desire expressed in Judge Maushart’s opinion that the -children should be given an opportunity to express an intelligent opinion as to their preference. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Karahadian v. Lockett
neutral
1 sentence1955(Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [ 68 P.2d 719 ]; Johnson v. Johnson, 72 Cal.App.2d 721 [ 165 P.2d 552 ]; Newman v. Newman, 109 Cal.App.2d 359 at 360 [ 240 P.2d 682 ].) It is true that Judge Cotton did not follow out the desire expressed in Judge Maushart’s opinion that the -children should be given an opportunity to express an intelligent opinion as to their preference. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Moon v. Moon
green
2 sentences1950(Foster v. Foster, supra, 728 .) In Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ], the court said: “In her brief appellant contended that eases such as Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [ 68 P.2d 719 ], and Moon v. Moon, 62 Cal.App.2d 185 [ 144 P.2d 596 ], holding that to justify a modification there must be a change of circumstances arising after the original decree was entered, controlled here. 1950(Foster v. Foster, supra, 728 .) In Bernstein v. Bernstein, 80 Cal.App.2d 921, 924 [ 183 P.2d 43 ], the court said: “In her brief appellant contended that eases such as Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [ 68 P.2d 719 ], and Moon v. Moon, 62 Cal.App.2d 185 [ 144 P.2d 596 ], holding that to justify a modification there must be a change of circumstances arising after the original decree was entered, controlled here. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.