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 1986–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montenegro v. Diazgreen2 sentences2022(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 256 .) Once that custody determination has been made, the party seeking to modify it “can do so only if [they] demonstrate[] a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification.” (Ibid.) “The changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test.” (Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 535 , italics added.) “It provides, in essence, that once it has been established that a particular custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court need no 2022(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 256 .) Once that custody determination has been made, the party seeking to modify it “can do so only if [they] demonstrate[] a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification.” (Ibid.) “The changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test.” (Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 535 , italics added.) “It provides, in essence, that once it has been established that a particular custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court need no | 1 | 4 |
In Re Marriage of Burgessgreen2 sentences2015Code,] § 3011.)” (Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255 , fn. omitted (Montenegro).) Once a final judicial custody order is in place, however, it can be changed only if the party seeking modification demonstrates “a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification.” (Montenegro, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 40 (Burgess).) “ ‘[T]he changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test. 2005Under the so-called changed circumstance rule, a party seeking to modify a permanent custody order can do so only if he or she demonstrates a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification. ([In re Marriage of] Burgess [(1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 ,] 37 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444 , 913 P.2d 473 ] [(Burgess)].) According to our earlier decisions, ‘[t]he changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test. | 1 | 2 |
Titmas v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2002Litigants are entitled to oral argument where called for by the context of a statute referring to a “hearing” or where there are “critical pretrial matters” involving a “real and genuine dispute.” (Id. at p. 114; see also TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [order denying attorney-client privilege]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 741 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ] [order involving class action status]; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 ] [summary 2002Litigants are entitled to oral argument where called for by the context of a statute referring to a “hearing” or where there are “critical pretrial matters” involving a “real and genuine dispute.” (Id. at p. 114; see also TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [order denying attorney-client privilege]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 741 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ] [order involving class action status]; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 ] [summary | 1 | 1 |
TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2002Litigants are entitled to oral argument where called for by the context of a statute referring to a “hearing” or where there are “critical pretrial matters” involving a “real and genuine dispute.” (Id. at p. 114; see also TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [order denying attorney-client privilege]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 741 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ] [order involving class action status]; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 ] [summary 2002Litigants are entitled to oral argument where called for by the context of a statute referring to a “hearing” or where there are “critical pretrial matters” involving a “real and genuine dispute.” (Id. at p. 114; see also TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [order denying attorney-client privilege]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 741 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ] [order involving class action status]; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 ] [summary | 1 | 1 |
In Re BGgreen2 sentences1986This test, established by statute, governs all custody proceedings. ( In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679 , 695-696 [ 114 Cal. Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 ].) The changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test. 1986This test, established by statute, governs all custody proceedings. ( In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679 , 695-696 [ 114 Cal. Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 ].) The changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burchard v. Garay
green
2 sentences2022(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 256 .) Once that custody determination has been made, the party seeking to modify it “can do so only if [they] demonstrate[] a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification.” (Ibid.) “The changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test.” (Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 535 , italics added.) “It provides, in essence, that once it has been established that a particular custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court need no 2022(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 256 .) Once that custody determination has been made, the party seeking to modify it “can do so only if [they] demonstrate[] a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification.” (Ibid.) “The changed-circumstance rule is not a different test, devised to supplant the statutory test, but an adjunct to the best-interest test.” (Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 535 , italics added.) “It provides, in essence, that once it has been established that a particular custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court need no | 3 | 2014–2022 |
In Re Marriage of Dunn-Kato & Dunn
green
1 sentence2016As this court said In re Marriage of Dunn (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 345 , 348: “Child custody and visitation orders may be modified based on the ‘best interests of the child’ and, as an adjunct to the best-interest test, in final judicial custody determinations where the moving party also has established a significant change in circumstances. [Citation.] The ‘overarching concern’ remains the best interests of the child. [Citation.]” 3 Likewise embodied in a separate formal order filed April 30, 2015. 4 Though one should note the trial court applied a special circumstances rule so the reduction wa | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cryer v. Cryer
green
1 sentence2016(See Cryer, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1049 .) 3 of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent”].) We note further that Howard points us to no place in the record where he argued to the trial court that special circumstances would have justified a lower-than- guideline support order, and on appeal he makes no argument that not deviating from the guideline formula was necessarily an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Mediterranean Constr. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
green
2 sentences2002Litigants are entitled to oral argument where called for by the context of a statute referring to a “hearing” or where there are “critical pretrial matters” involving a “real and genuine dispute.” (Id. at p. 114; see also TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [order denying attorney-client privilege]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 741 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ] [order involving class action status]; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 ] [summary 2002Litigants are entitled to oral argument where called for by the context of a statute referring to a “hearing” or where there are “critical pretrial matters” involving a “real and genuine dispute.” (Id. at p. 114; see also TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ] [order denying attorney-client privilege]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 741 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ] [order involving class action status]; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 ] [summary | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.