8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Associated Constr. & Eng'g v. WORKERS'COMP. APP. BD.green2 sentences1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. 1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Magallanesgreen1 sentence2024(See, e.g., People v. Panighetti (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 978 , 1005 [modifying judgment to award 534 days of presentence custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Jones (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 818 , 823 [modifying judgment to reflect correct number of custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Garner (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118-1119 [modifying judgment to award custody credits without remanding for full resentencing]; People v. Magallanes (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 529, 537 [directing trial court to modify judgment to increase custody credits by two days, | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garnergreen1 sentence2024(See, e.g., People v. Panighetti (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 978 , 1005 [modifying judgment to award 534 days of presentence custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Jones (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 818 , 823 [modifying judgment to reflect correct number of custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Garner (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118-1119 [modifying judgment to award custody credits without remanding for full resentencing]; People v. Magallanes (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 529, 537 [directing trial court to modify judgment to increase custody credits by two days, | 1 | 1 |
People v. Couchgreen2 sentences2024(See, e.g., People v. Panighetti (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 978 , 1005 [modifying judgment to award 534 days of presentence custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Jones (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 818 , 823 [modifying judgment to reflect correct number of custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Garner (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118-1119 [modifying judgment to award custody credits without remanding for full resentencing]; People v. Magallanes (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 529, 537 [directing trial court to modify judgment to increase custody credits by two days, 2024(See, e.g., People v. Panighetti (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 978 , 1005 [modifying judgment to award 534 days of presentence custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Jones (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 818 , 823 [modifying judgment to reflect correct number of custody credits and affirming judgment as modified]; People v. Garner (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118-1119 [modifying judgment to award custody credits without remanding for full resentencing]; People v. Magallanes (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 529, 537 [directing trial court to modify judgment to increase custody credits by two days, | 1 | 1 |
Cornelison v. Kornbluthgreen2 sentences2015These cases stand for the proposition that, except where a lender can allege it was fraudulently induced into making the initial loan, the full credit bid rule extinguishes “the lender’s only interest in the property, the repayment of its debt, has been satisfied, and any further payment would result in a double recovery.” (Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1238-1239, 1247-1248; see Passanisi, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1503 [full credit bid leaves no deficiency]; Cornelison, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 606 [full credit bid extinguishes the lien on the real property].) These cases dictat 2015These cases stand for the proposition that, except where a lender can allege it was fraudulently induced into making the initial loan, the full credit bid rule extinguishes “the lender’s only interest in the property, the repayment of its debt, has been satisfied, and any further payment would result in a double recovery.” (Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1238-1239, 1247-1248; see Passanisi, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1503 [full credit bid leaves no deficiency]; Cornelison, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 606 [full credit bid extinguishes the lien on the real property].) These cases dictat | 1 | 1 |
Passanisi v. Merit-McBride Realtors, Inc.green2 sentences2015These cases stand for the proposition that, except where a lender can allege it was fraudulently induced into making the initial loan, the full credit bid rule extinguishes “the lender’s only interest in the property, the repayment of its debt, has been satisfied, and any further payment would result in a double recovery.” (Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1238-1239, 1247-1248; see Passanisi, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1503 [full credit bid leaves no deficiency]; Cornelison, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 606 [full credit bid extinguishes the lien on the real property].) These cases dictat 2015These cases stand for the proposition that, except where a lender can allege it was fraudulently induced into making the initial loan, the full credit bid rule extinguishes “the lender’s only interest in the property, the repayment of its debt, has been satisfied, and any further payment would result in a double recovery.” (Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1238-1239, 1247-1248; see Passanisi, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1503 [full credit bid leaves no deficiency]; Cornelison, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 606 [full credit bid extinguishes the lien on the real property].) These cases dictat | 1 | 1 |
Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co.green2 sentences1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. 1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. | 1 | 1 |
DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.green2 sentences1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. 1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. | 1 | 1 |
Privette v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. 1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. | 1 | 1 |
Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.green2 sentences1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. 1997Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829 ; 843, italics added; see also Richards v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 985, 994 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 , 928 P.2d 1181 ]; Dafonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 599 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ]; Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 512-513 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 595 P.2d 619 ], overruled on other grounds in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ].) Application of the proper credit rule is best explained by a hypothetical settlement posed in Associated. | 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. Delgado
green
1 sentence2021The court cited People v. Delgado (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 761 (Delgado), for the proposition that section 1237.1 did not apply to the alleged credit error in this case. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell
green
1 sentence2015These cases stand for the proposition that, except where a lender can allege it was fraudulently induced into making the initial loan, the full credit bid rule extinguishes “the lender’s only interest in the property, the repayment of its debt, has been satisfied, and any further payment would result in a double recovery.” (Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1238-1239, 1247-1248; see Passanisi, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1503 [full credit bid leaves no deficiency]; Cornelison, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 606 [full credit bid extinguishes the lien on the real property].) These cases dictat | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Erreca's v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO CTY.
green
1 sentence1997Plaintiff attempts to support this factor by noting that the Erreca’s court, in its preface to discussing the amount of credit to nonsettling defendants, recognized as a relevant public policy “ ‘the maximization of recovery to the plaintiff for the amount of. . . injury to the extent that negligence or fault of others has contributed to it.’ ” (Erreca’s, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1500 .) That policy is not served by reducing the credit by factors which have nothing to do with the extent to which one category of defect contributed to total damages. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Roe v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences1984Appeals Bd., supra, 12 Cal.3d 884 , decided within the year preceding Li, the court considered the credit claim of a *355 partially negligent employer. 1984The Supreme Court reversed holding that in cases where employer negligence had not been determined the Board was directed to make the necessary factual determinations and in the presence of employer fault, the credit claim would be denied. ( 12 Cal.3d at p. 892 .) With the adoption of comparative negligence in Li, the court was faced with determining the impact of the doctrine on the holdings of Witt and Roe . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Kemerer v. Challenge Milk Co.
green
2 sentences1984In Kemerer v. Challenge Milk Co. (1980) 105 Cal. App.3d 334 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 397 ] the reviewing court again refused to impute the negligence *357 attributable to the employee to the employer in calculating the latter's reimbursement entitlement. 1984In Kemerer v. Challenge Milk Co. (1980) 105 Cal. App.3d 334 [ 164 Cal. Rptr. 397 ] the reviewing court again refused to impute the negligence *357 attributable to the employee to the employer in calculating the latter's reimbursement entitlement. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.