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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Olinick v. BMG ENTERTAINMENTgreen1 sentence2014(Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1305 (Olinick).) For example, in Olinick, the appellate court rejected a claim that California’s public policy against age discrimination would be violated by a contractual requirement for litigation in New York, where there was no showing that the selected forum would not provide an adequate remedy for his claim. | 1 | 1 |
TRIPLE a MACHINE SHOP, INC v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2003(Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of California (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 493 ].) Given that there is an adequate remedy under the claim and delivery law, an injunction is not the proper remedy to recover possession of trade fixtures and equipment. 2003(Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of California (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 493 ].) Given that there is an adequate remedy under the claim and delivery law, an injunction is not the proper remedy to recover possession of trade fixtures and equipment. | 1 | 1 |
Agresti v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences1993The administrative ruling is not an adequate remedy to bar a petition for writ of mandate. *233 In Agresti v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th, 599, 607 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 ], the review court said: “The term ‘acquittal’ has consistently been held to refer to a disposition of a criminal case following an adjudication on the merits. 1993The administrative ruling is not an adequate remedy to bar a petition for writ of mandate. *233 In Agresti v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th, 599, 607 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 ], the review court said: “The term ‘acquittal’ has consistently been held to refer to a disposition of a criminal case following an adjudication on the merits. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Plantier v. Ramona Mun. Water Dist.
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at p. 390.) Our Supreme Court, “[f]or purposes of th[e] analysis, . . . assume[d] that a Proposition 218 rate hearing is an ‘administrative remedy’ because that is the way the parties and the courts below ha[d] framed the issue presented by th[e] dispute.” 21 ( Plantier, supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 383-384.) The court held that, “[e]ven if a Proposition 218 hearing could be considered an administrative remedy, it would not provide an adequate remedy for a challenge to the method used to allocate the fee burden in th[at] case.” (Id. at p. 376.) It explained “a Proposition 218 rate increase hea 2020The answer is no.” (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist., supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 376 .) “Even if a Proposition 218 hearing could be considered an administrative remedy, it would not provide an adequate remedy for a challenge to the method used to allocate the fee burden in this case.” (Ibid.) “[A] Proposition 218 rate increase hearing is not a forum to protest an existing rate structure . . . .” (Id. at p. 387.) 5 Does Plantier Apply to Section 1094.5 Administrative Mandamus Cases? | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Rosenfield v. Malcolm
green
2 sentences2021Moreover, neither Sun Pacific nor Wallich’s Ranch considered whether the exhaustion requirement they read into the Pest Control Law comported with Proposition 218, or whether the opportunity to object under the Pest Control Law represented an adequate remedy under the standard announced in Rosenfield, supra, 65 Cal.2d at page 566 . 2021Moreover, neither Sun Pacific nor Wallich’s Ranch considered whether the exhaustion requirement they read into the Pest Control Law comported with Proposition 218, or whether the opportunity to object under the Pest Control Law represented an adequate remedy under the standard announced in Rosenfield, supra, 65 Cal.2d at page 566 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Connell v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
green
1 sentence2003Again, it is the public interest that is considered not the private interest of the requesting party. ( Connell v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 616-617, 65 Cal. Rptr.2d 738 .) Individual members of the Association have an adequate remedy for violation of their privacy rights should the Public Defender improperly utilize or disseminate private information outside the litigation context. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Elliott v. City of Pacific Grove
green
2 sentences1980The county further contends that without PUC review it lacks an adequate remedy to challenge unfair rates. (1) Although the county recognizes that it can institute suit in superior court to attack the LADWP rates (see Elliott v. City of Pacific Grove (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 53 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 371 ]; People ex rel. 1980The county further contends that without PUC review it lacks an adequate remedy to challenge unfair rates. (1) Although the county recognizes that it can institute suit in superior court to attack the LADWP rates (see Elliott v. City of Pacific Grove (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 53 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 371 ]; People ex rel. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.