66 California opinions name it 4 courts 1954–2025 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborngreen2 sentences2025(People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 772 [“The general rule is that a failure to object in the trial court waives the right to assert error on appeal”].) Even if James had not forfeited the argument, there is substantial evidence that his waiver was valid. 2024(See People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 772 [“failure to object in the trial court waives the right to assert error on appeal”].) Finally, even if not forfeited, Garcia’s argument lacks merit. | 4 | 4 |
Arnall v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2024(See Arnall v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 360, 373 [failure to oppose summary adjudication on a particular ground before the trial court forfeits the right to assert challenge on appeal].) Alexandros’s authorities do not convince us in any event, as they do not support his assertions. 2023(See Schmidt, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1513 [“ ‘failure to address summary adjudication of a claim on appeal constitutes abandonment of that claim’ ”]; Arnall v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 360, 373 [failure to oppose summary adjudication on a particular ground before the trial court forfeits the right to assert challenge on appeal].) The three claims were, in any event, derivative of, and dependent upon, the viability of Appellants’ principal claim for wrongful foreclosure, which has no merit. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2014(See People v. Beck, supra, 71 Cal.App.2d at p. 641 [“Where an amended pleading is filed in open court pursuant to section 1008 ... by the district attorney and the accused being present offers no objection thereto, he may not for the first time raise the point on appeal.”]; see also People v. Collins (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 587 ] [“Defendant did not object to the amendment of the information or ask for a continuance and thereby waived the right to assert error.”]; People v. Vance (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 871, 874 [ 292 P.2d 552 ].) This court has discretion to address a cla 2014(See People v. Beck, supra, 71 Cal.App.2d at p. 641 [“Where an amended pleading is filed in open court pursuant to section 1008 ... by the district attorney and the accused being present offers no objection thereto, he may not for the first time raise the point on appeal.”]; see also People v. Collins (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 587 ] [“Defendant did not object to the amendment of the information or ask for a continuance and thereby waived the right to assert error.”]; People v. Vance (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 871, 874 [ 292 P.2d 552 ].) This court has discretion to address a cla | 3 | 3 |
People v. Holtgreen2 sentences2025(See People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 667 [having “failed to specify either of the Miranda-based claims,” the defendant “waived the right to assert error on those grounds now”]; People v. Polk (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1194 [because the defendant “did not raise the issue of the substantive adequacy of the Miranda warnings in the trial court, defendant has forfeited that issue on appeal”].) Nor does defendant persuade that defense counsel acted unreasonably in failing to preserve the issue. 2015(See People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 482 [Miranda claim forfeited where “Miranda was not one of the several grounds upon which defendant challenged the admissibility of this statement below,” and “[a]s a result, the trial court had no opportunity to resolve material factual disputes and make necessary factual findings”]; People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 667 [“[h]aving failed to make [Miranda as a] basis for exclusion clear either in his written motion or at the hearing on that motion, defendant has waived the right to assert error on those grounds now”].) 3 before the disposition h | 2 | 2 |
Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A.green2 sentences2023(See Schmidt, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1513 [“ ‘failure to address summary adjudication of a claim on appeal constitutes abandonment of that claim’ ”]; Arnall v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 360, 373 [failure to oppose summary adjudication on a particular ground before the trial court forfeits the right to assert challenge on appeal].) The three claims were, in any event, derivative of, and dependent upon, the viability of Appellants’ principal claim for wrongful foreclosure, which has no merit. 2023(See Schmidt, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1513 [“ ‘failure to address summary adjudication of a claim on appeal constitutes abandonment of that claim’ ”]; Arnall v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 360, 373 [failure to oppose summary adjudication on a particular ground before the trial court forfeits the right to assert challenge on appeal].) The three claims were, in any event, derivative of, and dependent upon, the viability of Appellants’ principal claim for wrongful foreclosure, which has no merit. | 2 | 2 |
Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences2016(Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495-496 .) " 'To the extent that the court's equity power to grant relief differs from its power under section 473, the equity power must be considered narrower, not wider.' " (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 901, fn. 8 ; italics omitted.) Moreover, an appellant may be deemed to have waived the right to assert error on appeal by not properly raising an issue at the trial level, such as a purported error in setting or not setting a matter for hearing. 2016(Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495-496 .) " 'To the extent that the court's equity power to grant relief differs from its power under section 473, the equity power must be considered narrower, not wider.' " (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 901, fn. 8 ; italics omitted.) Moreover, an appellant may be deemed to have waived the right to assert error on appeal by not properly raising an issue at the trial level, such as a purported error in setting or not setting a matter for hearing. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2014(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 , 948 P.2d 429 ] (Williams).) We decline to do so here. 2014(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 , 948 P.2d 429 ] (Williams).) We decline to do so here. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Jessica B.green2 sentences1992In In re Lamonica H., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d 634 , 649-650 and in In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 504, 517-521 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 883 ], the fathers were each required by their respective reunification plans to admit abuse of their children and to seek treatment based on such admission. 1992In In re Lamonica H., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d 634 , 649-650 and in In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 504, 517-521 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 883 ], the fathers were each required by their respective reunification plans to admit abuse of their children and to seek treatment based on such admission. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Boyergreen2 sentences1991In such circumstances failure to object to admission at trial does not waive the right to assert error on appeal. ( People v. Jennings, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 974-975, fn. 3; see also People v. Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247 , 270-271, fn. 13 [suggesting that a renewed objection might not be required if it would be futile].) A third exception is recognized by the Dewberry-Angeles-Mills line of cases upholding review of an adverse evidentiary ruling on an appeal by the People where that ruling renders the People unable to proceed to trial. 1991In such circumstances failure to object to admission at trial does not waive the right to assert error on appeal. ( People v. Jennings, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 974-975, fn. 3; see also People v. Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247 , 270-271, fn. 13 [suggesting that a renewed objection might not be required if it would be futile].) A third exception is recognized by the Dewberry-Angeles-Mills line of cases upholding review of an adverse evidentiary ruling on an appeal by the People where that ruling renders the People unable to proceed to trial. | 2 | 2 |
Copley v. Copleygreen2 sentences1988Copley v. Copley, (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 97, 108 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 437 ], emphasized the precondition that Baglione required all the parties to be before the court. 1988Copley v. Copley, (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 97, 108 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 437 ], emphasized the precondition that Baglione required all the parties to be before the court. | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Cartergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Thornton v. Dennis M.green | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Superior Courtgreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. Figueroagreen2 sentences1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pattersongreen2 sentences1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Castrogreen2 sentences1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Dutygreen2 sentences1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 1972It is settled law that by failure to object to Miranda error in the trial court, one waives the right to assert such error on appeal. ( In re Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, 462 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 450 P.2d 296 ]; People v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App.3d 146, 150, fn. 1 [ 92 Cal. Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Carter, 7 Cal. App.3d 332, 339 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 546 ]; People v. Patterson, 270 Cal. App.2d 268, 272, fn. 1 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 485 ]; People v. Duty, 269 Cal. App.2d 97, 105 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 ]; People v. Figueroa, 268 Cal. App.2d 721, 727 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 74 ]; People v. Jackson, 266 Cal. App.2d 341, 34 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Vancegreen2 sentences2014(See People v. Beck, supra, 71 Cal.App.2d at p. 641 [“Where an amended pleading is filed in open court pursuant to section 1008 ... by the district attorney and the accused being present offers no objection thereto, he may not for the first time raise the point on appeal.”]; see also People v. Collins (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 587 ] [“Defendant did not object to the amendment of the information or ask for a continuance and thereby waived the right to assert error.”]; People v. Vance (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 871, 874 [ 292 P.2d 552 ].) This court has discretion to address a cla 2014(See People v. Beck, supra, 71 Cal.App.2d at p. 641 [“Where an amended pleading is filed in open court pursuant to section 1008 ... by the district attorney and the accused being present offers no objection thereto, he may not for the first time raise the point on appeal.”]; see also People v. Collins (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 587 ] [“Defendant did not object to the amendment of the information or ask for a continuance and thereby waived the right to assert error.”]; People v. Vance (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 871, 874 [ 292 P.2d 552 ].) This court has discretion to address a cla | 1 | 2 |
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences1994(See People v. Murphy (1963) 59 Cal.2d 818, 828, fn. 3 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 382 P.2d 346 ] [defendants’ substantial rights suffered no detriment when they made no demand for arraignment on amended information or objection for failure to so arraign, and went to trial impliedly on their prior pleas of not guilty]; People v. Collins (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 587 ]; People v. Walker (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 159, 164-165 [ 338 P.2d 536 ].) Defendant asserts that the failure to rearraign was prejudicial because eight years had passed since defendant had been informed of his constitu 1994(See People v. Murphy (1963) 59 Cal.2d 818, 828, fn. 3 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 382 P.2d 346 ] [defendants’ substantial rights suffered no detriment when they made no demand for arraignment on amended information or objection for failure to so arraign, and went to trial impliedly on their prior pleas of not guilty]; People v. Collins (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 587 ]; People v. Walker (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 159, 164-165 [ 338 P.2d 536 ].) Defendant asserts that the failure to rearraign was prejudicial because eight years had passed since defendant had been informed of his constitu | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Polkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Desert Hospital Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Collins v. State Dept. of Transp.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Beckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bruce v. Brucegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lim v. Silvertongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. Bontagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Marriage of Arceneauxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Burciagogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Moralesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Keller Construction Co. v. Kashanigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alicia T. v. County of Los Angelesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holling v. Chandlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Duckworth v. Eagangreen | 1 | 1 |
| DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix Dim Sum Cafe and Takeout III, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Titan Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| National Union Fire Insurance v. Siliconix Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gibbonsgreen | 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 v. Jennings
green
2 sentences2025Failure to renew the objection when the evidence is offered does not waive the right to assert error on appeal in these circumstances.” ( Jennings, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 975–976, fn. 3.) 11 delayed, unconvincing, or conflicted disclosure; and recantation or retraction. 2023Failure to renew the objection when the evidence is offered does not waive the right to assert error on appeal in these circumstances.” ( Jennings, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 975–976, fn. 3.) 11 to or feel comfortable going against that person in their life in other ways, including [with regard to] sexual abuse or telling about what’s happened.” Regarding helplessness, Dr. Carmichael testified that “kids do not regularly bite, kick, scream, or somehow draw attention to the fact that abuse is occurring.” He explained that the power dynamic favors the abuser, especially if the child is being abused | 4 | 1991–2025 |
Cottle v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2017Cottle involved an action filed by approximately 175 owners and renters of residential property who sued the property developers for personal injuries, emotional distress, and property damage arising *741 from development on a site that was previously used as a depository for hazardous waste and byproducts. ( Cottle , supra , 3 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) During discovery, the *170 plaintiffs responded to an interrogatory asking for a detailed description of the illness they claimed to suffer from exposure to chemical substances by stating generally that they had not yet 2017Cottle involved an action filed by approximately 175 owners and renters of residential property who sued the property developers for personal injuries, emotional distress, and property damage arising *741 from development on a site that was previously used as a depository for hazardous waste and byproducts. ( Cottle , supra , 3 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1371-1372, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) During discovery, the *170 plaintiffs responded to an interrogatory asking for a detailed description of the illness they claimed to suffer from exposure to chemical substances by stating generally that they had not yet | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Trinity County Health & Human Services v. C.N.
green
2 sentences2021(Rule 5.682(c), (f).)” (In re S.N. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 665, 671 .) Here, although the May 15, 2020 detention orders advised L.P. of her hearing rights, the juvenile court did not properly advise her of these rights on the record at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing; nor did it find and state on the record that L.P. knowingly and intelligently waived her hearing rights. 2016As recently summarized in In re S.N. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 665, 671 , fn. and italics omitted], the procedures dictated by rule 5.682 operate as follows: “If a parent denies the allegations in a section 300 petition, the juvenile court must hold a contested hearing on them. | 2 | 2016–2021 |
Greer v. Buzgheia
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Heiner v. Kmart Corp.
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) | 2 | 2019–2019 |
White v. Inbound Aviation
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) 2019Plaintiffs cite several cases for the proposition that the law prohibits speculation about the jury's apportionment of damages when an unsegregated verdict form is used ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728 , 223 Cal.Rptr. 859 ( Moore ); Heiner v. Kmart Corp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 335 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 ( Heiner ); and White v. Inbound Aviation (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 910 , 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 71 ( White ) ), and suggest that defendants forfeited the right to assert error because they did not object to use of the verdict form, citing Greer v. Buzgheia (2006) | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Moeller v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018Therefore, the right to assert the privilege is transferred from a trustee to his or her successor trustee. ( Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124 , 1130-1131, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 , 947 P.2d 279 .) With respect to the trustee's liability, the Probate Code provides that while the settlor may, through the trust's language, relieve the trustee of liability for breach of trust, the trustee may not be relieved of liability for intentional misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless indifference. "(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), the trustee can be relieved of liabili 2018Therefore, the right to assert the privilege is transferred from a trustee to his or her successor trustee. ( Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124 , 1130-1131, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 , 947 P.2d 279 .) With respect to the trustee's liability, the Probate Code provides that while the settlor may, through the trust's language, relieve the trustee of liability for breach of trust, the trustee may not be relieved of liability for intentional misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless indifference. "(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), the trustee can be relieved of liabili | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016(Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495-496 .) " 'To the extent that the court's equity power to grant relief differs from its power under section 473, the equity power must be considered narrower, not wider.' " (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 901, fn. 8 ; italics omitted.) Moreover, an appellant may be deemed to have waived the right to assert error on appeal by not properly raising an issue at the trial level, such as a purported error in setting or not setting a matter for hearing. 2016(Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495-496 .) " 'To the extent that the court's equity power to grant relief differs from its power under section 473, the equity power must be considered narrower, not wider.' " (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 901, fn. 8 ; italics omitted.) Moreover, an appellant may be deemed to have waived the right to assert error on appeal by not properly raising an issue at the trial level, such as a purported error in setting or not setting a matter for hearing. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Kevin S.
green
2 sentences2016(In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886 .) Mother cannot show it would have made any difference if her new attorney had been able to inspect sealed court files before the 2015 ruling was made. 2016(In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-886 .) Mother cannot show it would have made any difference if her new attorney had been able to inspect sealed court files before the 2015 ruling was made. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Monique T.
green
2 sentences2014(See In re Monique T. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1374 .) At the pre-trial resolution conference, the parties failed to reach an agreement resolving the case. 2014In lieu of a contested hearing, “The parent or guardian may elect to admit the allegations of the petition, plead no contest, or submit the jurisdictional determination to the court based on the information provided to the court and waive further jurisdictional hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.682(e).)3 California Rules of Court, rule 5.682(f)(3) provides that if a parent so elects, the juvenile court is required to find that the parent “has knowingly and intelligently waived the right to a trial on the issues by the court, the right to assert the privilege against self-incrimination, an | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Grassley v. Legal Services Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Absent some other ground for disqualifying Petitioner’s attorney, the Judge has a duty to permit Petitioner’s attorney to continue his representation in this matter.”].) It warrants emphasis that the mere fact that a statute or regulation exists does not create a claim or defense, or the right to assert a claim or defense in a particular forum. “ ‘Statutory rights and obligations are established by Congress, and it is entirely appropriate for Congress, in creating these rights and obligations, to determine in addition who may enforce them and in what manner.’ ” (Grassley v. Legal Services Corp 2004Absent some other ground for disqualifying Petitioner's attorney, the Judge has a duty to permit Petitioner's attorney to continue his representation in this matter."].) It warrants emphasis that the mere fact that a statute or regulation exists does not create a claim or defense, or the right to assert a claim or defense in a particular forum. "`Statutory rights and obligations are established by Congress, and it is entirely appropriate for Congress, in creating these rights and obligations, to determine in addition who may enforce them and in what manner.'" ( Grassley v. Legal Services Corp. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Lamonica H.
green
2 sentences1992In In re Lamonica H., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d 634 , 649-650 and in In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 504, 517-521 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 883 ], the fathers were each required by their respective reunification plans to admit abuse of their children and to seek treatment based on such admission. 1992In In re Lamonica H., supra, 220 Cal. App.3d 634 , 649-650 and in In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 504, 517-521 [ 254 Cal. Rptr. 883 ], the fathers were each required by their respective reunification plans to admit abuse of their children and to seek treatment based on such admission. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re Sheena K. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Sparks v. Mendoza green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Santisas v. Goodin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In Re Scott green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Marks green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Loehr v. Ventura County Community College District green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Tyus v. City of Los Angeles green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Wood v. Riverside General Hospital green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Del Real v. City of Riverside green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Rickley v. Goodfriend green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bergson v. Builders Insurance Co. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Courtney v. New York City Insurance green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Brendlin v. California green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Shipe green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Herbert v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Gross v. Recabaren green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Baker v. Birnbaum green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Mormile v. Sinclair green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Jioras green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Angeles green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Dewberry green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.