attachment hearing in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2023 3 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lorber Industries of California v. Turbulence, Inc.green calctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–2008 2 sentences 2008(Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1120 .) We will not disturb a determination upon controverted facts unless no substantial evidence supports the court’s determination. 2008(Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1120 .) We will not disturb a determination upon controverted facts unless no substantial evidence supports the court’s determination.	2	2
Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc.green calctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–2008 2 sentences 2008(Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1120 .) We will not disturb a determination upon controverted facts unless no substantial evidence supports the court’s determination. 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43	1	2
E.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Districtgreen calctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017The trial 655 court denied the petition because more than six months had elapsed after the late claim application was rejected. ( E.M. , at pp. 740-742, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 .) The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that the claim presentation requirement was satisfied by the plaintiff's attachment of a claim to her late claim application. ( Id. at p. 747, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 .) The E.M. court was not persuaded that the plaintiff's only recourse was a petition for relief under section 946.6. 2017The trial 655 court denied the petition because more than six months had elapsed after the late claim application was rejected. ( E.M. , at pp. 740-742, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 .) The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that the claim presentation requirement was satisfied by the plaintiff's attachment of a claim to her late claim application. ( Id. at p. 747, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 .) The E.M. court was not persuaded that the plaintiff's only recourse was a petition for relief under section 946.6.	1	1
Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitalsgreen cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43	1	1
Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co.green calctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43	1	1
Doak v. Brusongreen cal · 1907 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43 1989(Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 830 ]; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Doak v. Bruson (1907) 152 Cal. 17, 19 [ 91 P. 1001 ]; Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1971) 5 Cal.3d 98, 108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 516 , 485 P.2d 1132 ], and cases there cited.) “We review the evidence on appeal in favor of the prevailing party, resolving conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in support of the judgment.” (Claussen v. First American Title Guaranty Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 429, 43	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Goldstein v. Barak Construction green calctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2023Standard of Review “ ‘On appeal from an attachment order, we review the record for substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings. [Citation.] We apply the same evidentiary standard to an attachment hearing decided on affidavits and declarations as to a case tried on oral testimony. [Citation.] We will not disturb a determination upon controverted facts unless no substantial evidence supports the court’s determination.” (Goldstein v. Barak Constr. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 853 .) But where we are required to interpret the meaning of a statute, our review is de novo. 2022Standard of Review “On appeal from an attachment order, . . . [w]e apply the same evidentiary standard to an attachment hearing decided on affidavits and declarations as to a case tried on oral testimony.” (Goldstein v. Barak Construction (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 853 , citation omitted.) Although there is no dispute about that basic point, the parties take opposite positions on the standard governing the court’s exercise of discretion in granting the RTAO, with Royals urging review of substantial evidence and Lu urging de novo review.	2	2022–2023
Parthemore v. Col green calctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2022However, “the cases make it plain that [a] plaintiff’s obligation to exhaust the administrative remedies available to prisoners ... is independent of the obligation to comply with the Government Claims Act.” (Parthemore, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1382 .) More specifically, “the doctrine of equitable tolling cannot be invoked to suspend section 911.2’s six-month deadline for filing a prerequisite government claim.” (Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104 , 1121.) In other words, “the six-month period of section 911.2 is not a statute of limitations [citation] to which tolling	1	2022–2022
Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. green calctapp · 1989 1 sentence 2008(Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 273 .) We apply the same evidentiary standard to an attachment hearing decided on affidavits and declarations as to a case tried on oral testimony.	1	2008–2008
Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District green cal · 1989 1 sentence 1993This assistance did not violate the statutory requirements (§§ 40725-40728) for rulemaking.” (Western Oil & Gas Assn., supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 427 , fn. omitted.) The court went on: “If the argument is that the district delegated too much discretion to its control officer before adopting the rule, we reject that argument as well.	1	1993–1993
Pickens v. Johnson green calctapp · 1951 2 sentences 1954(Pickens v. Johnson, 107 Cal.App.2d 778 [ 238 P.2d 40 ].) The Pickens based their claim of a violation of the lease on a clause in which the Johnsons, lessees, agreed not to permit any liens to be filed against the premises, asserting the levy of the attachment as a violation, and further invoked a clause of the lease which gave them right of reentry for breach. 1954(Pickens v. Johnson, 107 Cal.App.2d 778 [ 238 P.2d 40 ].) The Pickens based their claim of a violation of the lease on a clause in which the Johnsons, lessees, agreed not to permit any liens to be filed against the premises, asserting the levy of the attachment as a violation, and further invoked a clause of the lease which gave them right of reentry for breach.	1	1954–1954

Where else courts name it

IL 9 (2007–2020) CA 8 (1954–2023) FL 7 (1982–2016) NV 5 (2016–2024) OH 4 (1933–2012) OR 4 (2013–2018) MA 4 (1836–2000) MS 3 (1962–2004) AL 3 (1844–1887) NY 3 (1971–2011) PA 3 (1905–2017) TX 3 (1998–2008) TN 2 (1986–2018) LA 2 (1988–1992) IA 2 (1991–2022) MD 2 (1923–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check