9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Bushmangreen2 sentences1983Further, the exercise of the right to appeal from a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1243 may not be deemed a repudiation or violation of that condition. “[B]y accepting the benefits of probation a defendant does not waive the right to urge the invalidity of an improper, a void, condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus.” (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832, fn. 2 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) “If, ... the defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of any alleged invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order g 1983Further, the exercise of the right to appeal from a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1243 may not be deemed a repudiation or violation of that condition. “[B]y accepting the benefits of probation a defendant does not waive the right to urge the invalidity of an improper, a void, condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus.” (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832, fn. 2 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) “If, ... the defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of any alleged invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order g | 1 | 1 |
In Re Osslogreen2 sentences1983Further, the exercise of the right to appeal from a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1243 may not be deemed a repudiation or violation of that condition. “[B]y accepting the benefits of probation a defendant does not waive the right to urge the invalidity of an improper, a void, condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus.” (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832, fn. 2 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) “If, ... the defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of any alleged invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order g 1983Further, the exercise of the right to appeal from a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1243 may not be deemed a repudiation or violation of that condition. “[B]y accepting the benefits of probation a defendant does not waive the right to urge the invalidity of an improper, a void, condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus.” (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832, fn. 2 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) “If, ... the defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of any alleged invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order g | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellergreen2 sentences1983Further, the exercise of the right to appeal from a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1243 may not be deemed a repudiation or violation of that condition. “[B]y accepting the benefits of probation a defendant does not waive the right to urge the invalidity of an improper, a void, condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus.” (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832, fn. 2 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) “If, ... the defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of any alleged invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order g 1983Further, the exercise of the right to appeal from a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1243 may not be deemed a repudiation or violation of that condition. “[B]y accepting the benefits of probation a defendant does not waive the right to urge the invalidity of an improper, a void, condition on direct appeal from that judgment or on habeas corpus.” (People v. Keller (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 827, 832, fn. 2 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 184 ].) “If, ... the defendant accepts probation, he may seek relief from the restraint of any alleged invalid condition of probation on appeal from the order g | 1 | 1 |
Homestead Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1967This is what distinguishes the pronouncements in and holdings of such eases from Homestead Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.2d 697, 701 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 121 ] (hear, den.), where, similarly, the filing of a mechanic’s lien against certain land was held not to be inconsistent with nor a repudiation or a waiver of the right to arbitrate the personal liability of the debtor. 2 Again, the type of relief initially *764 sought was unavailable through arbitration. 1967This is what distinguishes the pronouncements in and holdings of such eases from Homestead Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.2d 697, 701 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 121 ] (hear, den.), where, similarly, the filing of a mechanic’s lien against certain land was held not to be inconsistent with nor a repudiation or a waiver of the right to arbitrate the personal liability of the debtor. 2 Again, the type of relief initially *764 sought was unavailable through arbitration. | 1 | 1 |
National Broadcasting Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the 1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the | 1 | 1 |
Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the 1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the | 1 | 1 |
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.green2 sentences1950The remedy for the presently existing inconsistency is not the total repudiation of the rule of administrative finality but the recognition that "our duty is at an end when it becomes evident that the Commission's action is based on substantial evidence and is consistent with the [statutory] authority." ( Securities & Exchange Com. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 207 [ 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1760 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 ]; Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor R. 1950The remedy for the presently existing inconsistency is not the total repudiation of the rule of administrative finality but the recognition that "our duty is at an end when it becomes evident that the Commission's action is based on substantial evidence and is consistent with the [statutory] authority." ( Securities & Exchange Com. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 207 [ 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1760 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 ]; Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Conrad Bros. v. John Deere Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2014Co. (Iowa 2001) 640 N.W.2d 231 (Conrad Brothers) discussed prevention doctrine but ultimately reached the same result under the doctrine of repudiation. 2014Co. (Iowa 2001) 640 N.W.2d 231 (Conrad Brothers) discussed the prevention doctrine but ultimately reached the same result under the doctrine of repudiation. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2007We are of course constrained to follow the holdings of the California Supreme Court. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 .) The actual holding of Lybarger is that the officer's interrogation violated a statute requiring that public safety officers be advised of their constitutional rights. 2007We are of course constrained to follow the holdings of the California Supreme Court. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 .) The actual holding of Lybarger is that the officer's interrogation violated a statute requiring that public safety officers be advised of their constitutional rights. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hewitt v. Helms
red
2 sentences2007He concurred in the result only because the state had failed to clearly acknowledge this restriction on use. ( Id. at pp. 475-476, 103 S.Ct. 864 .) Even Justice White, however, acknowledged that Turley contemplated "formal immunity protections." ( Id. at p. 475, 103 S.Ct. 864 .) The court's refusal to embrace his departure from that requirement must also stand as a repudiation of the rule attributed to the federal cases in Lybarger . 2007He concurred in the result only because the state had failed to clearly acknowledge this restriction on use. ( Id. at pp. 475-476, 103 S.Ct. 864 .) Even Justice White, however, acknowledged that Turley contemplated "formal immunity protections." ( Id. at p. 475, 103 S.Ct. 864 .) The court's refusal to embrace his departure from that requirement must also stand as a repudiation of the rule attributed to the federal cases in Lybarger . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gold Mining & Water Co. v. Swinerton
green
2 sentences1955A breach of contract or a refusal to perform by one of the parties excuses the other party, not at fault, from performance on his part. ( Twomey v. People's Ice Co., 66 Cal. 233 [ 5 P. 158 ]; Gold Min. & Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.2d 19 [ 142 P.2d 22 ]; Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165 [ 97 P. 177 ].) Hence in this case plaintiff was excused from performance of the contract requiring an appeal to a higher authority in the union because of the union's repudiation and violation of the contract requiring a notice and hearing. 1955A breach of contract or a refusal to perform by one of the parties excuses the other party, not at fault, from performance on his part. ( Twomey v. People's Ice Co., 66 Cal. 233 [ 5 P. 158 ]; Gold Min. & Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.2d 19 [ 142 P.2d 22 ]; Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165 [ 97 P. 177 ].) Hence in this case plaintiff was excused from performance of the contract requiring an appeal to a higher authority in the union because of the union's repudiation and violation of the contract requiring a notice and hearing. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Twomey v. People's Ice Co.
neutral
2 sentences1955A breach of contract or a refusal to perform by one of the parties excuses the other party, not at fault, from performance on his part. ( Twomey v. People's Ice Co., 66 Cal. 233 [ 5 P. 158 ]; Gold Min. & Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.2d 19 [ 142 P.2d 22 ]; Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165 [ 97 P. 177 ].) Hence in this case plaintiff was excused from performance of the contract requiring an appeal to a higher authority in the union because of the union's repudiation and violation of the contract requiring a notice and hearing. 1955A breach of contract or a refusal to perform by one of the parties excuses the other party, not at fault, from performance on his part. ( Twomey v. People's Ice Co., 66 Cal. 233 [ 5 P. 158 ]; Gold Min. & Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.2d 19 [ 142 P.2d 22 ]; Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165 [ 97 P. 177 ].) Hence in this case plaintiff was excused from performance of the contract requiring an appeal to a higher authority in the union because of the union's repudiation and violation of the contract requiring a notice and hearing. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co.
green
2 sentences1955A breach of contract or a refusal to perform by one of the parties excuses the other party, not at fault, from performance on his part. ( Twomey v. People's Ice Co., 66 Cal. 233 [ 5 P. 158 ]; Gold Min. & Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.2d 19 [ 142 P.2d 22 ]; Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165 [ 97 P. 177 ].) Hence in this case plaintiff was excused from performance of the contract requiring an appeal to a higher authority in the union because of the union's repudiation and violation of the contract requiring a notice and hearing. 1955A breach of contract or a refusal to perform by one of the parties excuses the other party, not at fault, from performance on his part. ( Twomey v. People's Ice Co., 66 Cal. 233 [ 5 P. 158 ]; Gold Min. & Water Co. v. Swinerton, 23 Cal.2d 19 [ 142 P.2d 22 ]; Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165 [ 97 P. 177 ].) Hence in this case plaintiff was excused from performance of the contract requiring an appeal to a higher authority in the union because of the union's repudiation and violation of the contract requiring a notice and hearing. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry
green
1 sentence1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
1 sentence1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board
green
2 sentences1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the 1950Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800 [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372 , 157 A.L.R. 1081 ]; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 224 [ 63 S.Ct. 997 , 87 L.Ed. 1344 ].) "The construction of a constitutional provision like that in question, given by the California court, is not upheld by the weight of authorities and would, if carried to its logical conclusion, emasculate, if not destroy, the powers of practically every administrative board or tribunal in [the] state." ( Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239 [ 112 P.2d 870, 873 ].) Compelling reasons for the abandonment of the | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Bryson v. International Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1931Co., 82 Cal.App. 137 [ 255 P. 260 ], Pigg v. International Indemnity Co., 86 Cal.App. 671 [ 261 P. 486 ], Bryson v. International Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App. 100 [ 262 P. 790 ], and Langley v. Zurich Gen. 1931Co., 82 Cal.App. 137 [ 255 P. 260 ], Pigg v. International Indemnity Co., 86 Cal.App. 671 [ 261 P. 486 ], Bryson v. International Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App. 100 [ 262 P. 790 ], and Langley v. Zurich Gen. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Marple v. American Automobile Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1931Co., 82 Cal.App. 137 [ 255 P. 260 ], Pigg v. International Indemnity Co., 86 Cal.App. 671 [ 261 P. 486 ], Bryson v. International Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App. 100 [ 262 P. 790 ], and Langley v. Zurich Gen. 1931Co., 82 Cal.App. 137 [ 255 P. 260 ], Pigg v. International Indemnity Co., 86 Cal.App. 671 [ 261 P. 486 ], Bryson v. International Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App. 100 [ 262 P. 790 ], and Langley v. Zurich Gen. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Pigg v. International Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1931Co., 82 Cal.App. 137 [ 255 P. 260 ], Pigg v. International Indemnity Co., 86 Cal.App. 671 [ 261 P. 486 ], Bryson v. International Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App. 100 [ 262 P. 790 ], and Langley v. Zurich Gen. 1931Co., 82 Cal.App. 137 [ 255 P. 260 ], Pigg v. International Indemnity Co., 86 Cal.App. 671 [ 261 P. 486 ], Bryson v. International Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App. 100 [ 262 P. 790 ], and Langley v. Zurich Gen. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Heyland v. Badger
neutral
1 sentence1896Prior to 1873 the giving of a chattel mortgage in this state vested the mortgagee with the title to the property mortgaged (Heyland v. Badger, 35 Cal. 404 ), and, while .this rule of law prevailed, the foregoing decisions would have been, applicable. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
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.