8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christensen v. Tuckergreen2 sentences1966The applicable rule is stated in Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ], as follows: “In an action between adjoining landowners, when the defendant without privilege occupies the plaintiff’s property, an injunction is granted to remove the encroachment. [Citation.] But ‘where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injun 1966The applicable rule is stated in Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ], as follows: “In an action between adjoining landowners, when the defendant without privilege occupies the plaintiff’s property, an injunction is granted to remove the encroachment. [Citation.] But ‘where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injun | 3 | 3 |
Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hattongreen2 sentences2025(Hirshfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749 , 758–759.) “[W]hen the defendant without privilege occupies the plaintiff’s property, an injunction is granted to remove the encroachment.” (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 .) The hardship doctrine does not apply to Olen’s claim for injunctive relief based on the two-year construction deadline of section 4.06 for several reasons. 1966The applicable rule is stated in Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ], as follows: “In an action between adjoining landowners, when the defendant without privilege occupies the plaintiff’s property, an injunction is granted to remove the encroachment. [Citation.] But ‘where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injun | 2 | 3 |
Phillips v. Ishamgreen2 sentences2016(Phillips v. Isham (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 537, 539-540 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) “ ‘[Wjhere the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.’ ” (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ] (Brown Derby), quoting Christensen v. Tucker (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ].) 2016(Phillips v. Isham (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 537, 539-540 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) “ ‘[Wjhere the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.’ ” (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ] (Brown Derby), quoting Christensen v. Tucker (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ].) | 1 | 2 |
Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc.green2 sentences2016(Phillips v. Isham (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 537, 539-540 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) “ ‘[Wjhere the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.’ ” (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ] (Brown Derby), quoting Christensen v. Tucker (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ].) 2016(Phillips v. Isham (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 537, 539-540 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) “ ‘[Wjhere the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.’ ” (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ] (Brown Derby), quoting Christensen v. Tucker (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ].) | 1 | 1 |
In Re Fresquezgreen2 sentences1971(In re Fresquez, 67 Cal.2d 626, 633 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 271 , 432 P.2d 959 ]; In re Jones, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d 376, 382-384 .) The *14 determination of competency may be based on information volunteered by the defendant without inquiry. 1971(In re Fresquez, 67 Cal.2d 626, 633 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 271 , 432 P.2d 959 ]; In re Jones, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d 376, 382-384 .) The *14 determination of competency may be based on information volunteered by the defendant without inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
Dolske v. Gormleygreen2 sentences1964(Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) But “where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.” (Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ]; see Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 270 , 375 P.2d 174 ]; Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal.App.2d 154, 163 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 174 ]; Baglione v 1964(Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) But “where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.” (Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ]; see Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 270 , 375 P.2d 174 ]; Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal.App.2d 154, 163 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 174 ]; Baglione v | 1 | 1 |
Baglione v. Leuegreen2 sentences1964(Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) But “where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.” (Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ]; see Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 270 , 375 P.2d 174 ]; Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal.App.2d 154, 163 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 174 ]; Baglione v 1964(Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) But “where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.” (Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ]; see Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 270 , 375 P.2d 174 ]; Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal.App.2d 154, 163 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 174 ]; Baglione v | 1 | 1 |
Pahl v. Riberogreen1 sentence1964(Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537 [ 244 P.2d 716 ].) But “where the encroachment does not irreparably injure the plaintiff, was innocently made, and where the cost of removal would be great compared to the inconvenience caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment, the equity court may, in its discretion, deny the injunction and compel the plaintiff to accept damages.” (Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 250 P.2d 660 ]; see Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 270 , 375 P.2d 174 ]; Pahl v. Ribero, 193 Cal.App.2d 154, 163 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 174 ]; Baglione v | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at p. 309.) Following Elstad, in Seibert the United States Supreme Court considered a “two-step” interrogation in which the police deliberately questioned the defendant without warning her, issued Miranda warnings, and then continued the interrogation. ( Seibert, supra, 542 U.S. at pp. 604-606.) Seibert feared charges of neglect arising from the death of her son, who suffered from cerebral palsy. 2021(Id. at p. 309.) Following Elstad, in Seibert the United States Supreme Court considered a “two-step” interrogation in which the police deliberately questioned the defendant without warning her, issued Miranda warnings, and then continued the interrogation. ( Seibert, supra, 542 U.S. at pp. 604-606.) Seibert feared charges of neglect arising from the death of her son, who suffered from cerebral palsy. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Hirshfield v. Schwartz
green
1 sentence2025(Hirshfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 749 , 758–759.) “[W]hen the defendant without privilege occupies the plaintiff’s property, an injunction is granted to remove the encroachment.” (Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858 .) The hardship doctrine does not apply to Olen’s claim for injunctive relief based on the two-year construction deadline of section 4.06 for several reasons. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2021Harmless Error Analysis Kurtzman error is analyzed pursuant to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .4 (Olivas, supra, 248 Cal. App.4th at p. 775 .) Reversal is required where it is reasonably probable the jury would have reached an outcome more favorable to the defendant without the error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Olivas
green
1 sentence2021Harmless Error Analysis Kurtzman error is analyzed pursuant to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .4 (Olivas, supra, 248 Cal. App.4th at p. 775 .) Reversal is required where it is reasonably probable the jury would have reached an outcome more favorable to the defendant without the error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Jones
green
1 sentence1971(In re Fresquez, 67 Cal.2d 626, 633 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 271 , 432 P.2d 959 ]; In re Jones, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d 376, 382-384 .) The *14 determination of competency may be based on information volunteered by the defendant without inquiry. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.