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 2011–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reyes v. Koshagreen1 sentence2015(Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 ["Although our review of a summary judgment is de novo, it is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and supported in [the opening] brief."].) Csiza did not raise the additional three arguments in her opposition to CarMax's motion in the trial court either. 17 declaration, the Gonsalves declaration "should be disregarded in its entirety." (Initial capitalization omitted.) In her brief on appeal, without mentioning the standard of review or citing any legal authority or necessary record references, Csiza devotes nine pages mostl | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs-Zorne v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011The judgment reflects that the trial court granted CarMax’s motion for summary adjudication of Areso’s first cause of action and ordered dismissal without prejudice of Areso’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. 6 “A judgment that disposes of fewer than all the causes of action framed by the complaint is not final in the fundamental sense as to any parties between whom another cause of action remains pending.” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 307 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 935 P.2d 781 ].) While “an order granting summary adjudication is an intermediate order 2011The judgment reflects that the trial court granted CarMax’s motion for summary adjudication of Areso’s first cause of action and ordered dismissal without prejudice of Areso’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. 6 “A judgment that disposes of fewer than all the causes of action framed by the complaint is not final in the fundamental sense as to any parties between whom another cause of action remains pending.” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 307 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 935 P.2d 781 ].) While “an order granting summary adjudication is an intermediate order | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2011The judgment reflects that the trial court granted CarMax’s motion for summary adjudication of Areso’s first cause of action and ordered dismissal without prejudice of Areso’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. 6 “A judgment that disposes of fewer than all the causes of action framed by the complaint is not final in the fundamental sense as to any parties between whom another cause of action remains pending.” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 307 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 935 P.2d 781 ].) While “an order granting summary adjudication is an intermediate order 2011The judgment reflects that the trial court granted CarMax’s motion for summary adjudication of Areso’s first cause of action and ordered dismissal without prejudice of Areso’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. 6 “A judgment that disposes of fewer than all the causes of action framed by the complaint is not final in the fundamental sense as to any parties between whom another cause of action remains pending.” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 307 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 935 P.2d 781 ].) While “an order granting summary adjudication is an intermediate order | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
KAUFMAN & BROAD v. Performance Plastering
green
2 sentences2016We grant the motion insofar as it asks this court to take judicial notice of the legislative history appended to CarMax's motion ( Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26 , 31, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ) but deny the motion insofar as it requests that we take judicial notice of nonbinding federal trial court decisions. ( Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408 , 418, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 807 .) See footnote *, ante . 2016We grant the motion insofar as it asks this court to take judicial notice of the legislative history appended to CarMax's motion ( Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26 , 31, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ) but deny the motion insofar as it requests that we take judicial notice of nonbinding federal trial court decisions. ( Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408 , 418, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 807 .) See footnote *, ante . | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Deveny v. ENTROPIN, INC.
green
2 sentences2016We grant the motion insofar as it asks this court to take judicial notice of the legislative history appended to CarMax's motion ( Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26 , 31, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ) but deny the motion insofar as it requests that we take judicial notice of nonbinding federal trial court decisions. ( Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408 , 418, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 807 .) See footnote *, ante . 2016We grant the motion insofar as it asks this court to take judicial notice of the legislative history appended to CarMax's motion ( Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26 , 31, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ) but deny the motion insofar as it requests that we take judicial notice of nonbinding federal trial court decisions. ( Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408 , 418, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 807 .) See footnote *, ante . | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Rappleyea v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2016(Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 418 .) 6 that the court may have misapplied [the law] as long as any other correct legal reason exists to sustain [the judgment]." (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981 .) III ANALYSIS A. Brooks's Claims Under Kwikset 3 Brooks argues the court erred in ruling she did not have standing to pursue her claims based on the trial court's finding she suffered no injury from the alleged violations. 2016(Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 418 .) 6 that the court may have misapplied [the law] as long as any other correct legal reason exists to sustain [the judgment]." (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981 .) III ANALYSIS A. Brooks's Claims Under Kwikset 3 Brooks argues the court erred in ruling she did not have standing to pursue her claims based on the trial court's finding she suffered no injury from the alleged violations. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Baycol Cases I & II
green
2 sentences2015As the California Supreme Court recently explained, an order “determining the plaintiff could not maintain his claims as a class action but could seek individual relief, was appealable . . . [b]ecause the order effectively rang the death knell for the class claims,” and therefore was “in essence a final judgment on those claims.” (In re Baycol Cases I , and II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 757 .) This permits an appeal from “an order that . . . amounts to a de facto final judgment for absent plaintiffs, under circumstances where . . . the persistence of viable but perhaps de minimis individual plaint 2015As the California Supreme Court recently explained, an order “determining the plaintiff could not maintain his claims as a class action but could seek individual relief, was appealable . . . [b]ecause the order effectively rang the death knell for the class claims,” and therefore was “in essence a final judgment on those claims.” (In re Baycol Cases I , and II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 757 .) This permits an appeal from “an order that . . . amounts to a de facto final judgment for absent plaintiffs, under circumstances where . . . the persistence of viable but perhaps de minimis individual plaint | 2 | 2015–2015 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
green
2 sentences2015In a prior opinion, we reversed and remanded with directions on the ground that the trial court erred in concluding that Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry) had been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [179 L.Ed.2 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion), and we directed the trial court to determine whether the factors in Gentry existed to allow Fowler to proceed in court with the class action. 2015In a prior opinion, we reversed and remanded with directions on the ground that the trial court erred in concluding that Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry) had been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [179 L.Ed.2 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion), and we directed the trial court to determine whether the factors in Gentry existed to allow Fowler to proceed in court with the class action. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Gentry v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2015In a prior opinion, we reversed and remanded with directions on the ground that the trial court erred in concluding that Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry) had been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [179 L.Ed.2 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion), and we directed the trial court to determine whether the factors in Gentry existed to allow Fowler to proceed in court with the class action. 2015In a prior opinion, we reversed and remanded with directions on the ground that the trial court erred in concluding that Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry) had been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [179 L.Ed.2 742, 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion), and we directed the trial court to determine whether the factors in Gentry existed to allow Fowler to proceed in court with the class action. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC
green
1 sentence2020Provided the notice to the defendants in writing and by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the place where the transaction occurred or to CarMax’s principal place of business within California. [¶] Mr. Jaime must have complied exactly with these notice requirements and procedures.” The court also provided a special instruction to the jury based on its interpretation of Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC (9th Cir. 2016) 840 F.3d 644 , which held that CarMax’s standard list of items inspected did not comply with Vehicle Code section 11713.18, subdivision (a)(6) and | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016To the contrary, in Rojas , the plaintiff pleaded causes of action for violation of the CLRA and UCL and on appeal the court ordered demurrers to those claims be sustained, albeit with leave to amend. ( Rojas, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006 , 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 .) The statute provided that, if the seller violated certain disclosure requirements, "the conditional sale contract shall not be enforceable ... until after the violation is corrected as provided in Section 2984, and, if the violation is not corrected, the buyer may recover from the seller the total amount paid ... by the buyer.... 2016To the contrary, in Rojas , the plaintiff pleaded causes of action for violation of the CLRA and UCL and on appeal the court ordered demurrers to those claims be sustained, albeit with leave to amend. ( Rojas, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006 , 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 .) The statute provided that, if the seller violated certain disclosure requirements, "the conditional sale contract shall not be enforceable ... until after the violation is corrected as provided in Section 2984, and, if the violation is not corrected, the buyer may recover from the seller the total amount paid ... by the buyer.... | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.