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 1 courts 2000–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2023Like many of the cases addressing the unclean-hands doctrine, Kendall- Jackson observed that “[w]hether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact.” (Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 978 ; see also CrossTalk, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 639 [finding factual ambiguity on face of complaint and reversing judgment of dismissal after sustention of demurrer based on unclean-hands defense]; Insurance Co. of North America v. Liberty Mutual Ins. 2023(Kendall- Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978 [“Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact.”].) “In reviewing the evidence, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—to support the trial court’s findings. [Citation.] We must accept as true all evidence supporting the trial court’s findings, resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment.” (Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1 , 11–12.) Without an oral record of the bench trial, we are unable to examine what e | 6 | 7 |
Crosstalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobsongreen2 sentences2023Like many of the cases addressing the unclean-hands doctrine, Kendall- Jackson observed that “[w]hether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact.” (Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 978 ; see also CrossTalk, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 639 [finding factual ambiguity on face of complaint and reversing judgment of dismissal after sustention of demurrer based on unclean-hands defense]; Insurance Co. of North America v. Liberty Mutual Ins. 2023Like many of the cases addressing the unclean-hands doctrine, Kendall- Jackson observed that “[w]hether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact.” (Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 978 ; see also CrossTalk, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 639 [finding factual ambiguity on face of complaint and reversing judgment of dismissal after sustention of demurrer based on unclean-hands defense]; Insurance Co. of North America v. Liberty Mutual Ins. | 2 | 3 |
Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304green2 sentences2000(Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] (Fibreboard); Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 562, 574 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact. 2000(Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] (Fibreboard); Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 562, 574 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact. | 1 | 2 |
Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Polegreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
Lovett v. Carrascogreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.green2 sentences2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t 2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Dancygreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
California School Employees Ass'n, Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Districtgreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPgreen1 sentence2023Co. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 297 , 306–307 (Insurance Co.); Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675 , 726–727 (Fibreboard) [reversing judgment of dismissal after 16 demurrer]; Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 681 (Peregrine) [unclean-hands defense generally presents question of fact but may be raised at pleading stage or on motion to strike if plaintiff’s own pleadings establish the basis of the defense].) Other cases have identified the question whether the unclean-hands doctrine can be | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Grimesgreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
Aguayo v. Amarogreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Fellowsgreen1 sentence2023(Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [“Compare Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [abuse of discretion] and Lovett 17 v. Carrasco (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 48, 55 [abuse of discretion] with California School Employees Assn., Tustin Chapter No. 450 v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 510, 521 [substantial evidence], In re Marriage of Dancy (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 [substantial evidence], superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Fellows (2006) 39 Cal.4th 179, 185, fn. 6 , Kendall-Jackson[, supra, 76 Cal.App.4t | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. Sosinskygreen2 sentences2000(Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] (Fibreboard); Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 562, 574 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact. 2000(Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] (Fibreboard); Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 562, 574 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 33 ].) Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Insurance Co. of North America v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2023Co. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 297 , 306–307 (Insurance Co.); Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675 , 726–727 (Fibreboard) [reversing judgment of dismissal after 16 demurrer]; Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 681 (Peregrine) [unclean-hands defense generally presents question of fact but may be raised at pleading stage or on motion to strike if plaintiff’s own pleadings establish the basis of the defense].) Other cases have identified the question whether the unclean-hands doctrine can be | 1 | 2023–2023 |