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 1 courts 1957–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. Security Insurancegreen2 sentences1962In American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ], it is said: “In an action for declaratory relief, the proper function of the court is to make a full and complete declaration, disposing of all questions of rights, status or other legal relations encountered in construing the instrument before it.” Osborne v. Security Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 94 ], states: “It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy,” and points out the prejudicial nature of a failure to find upon a mater 1962In American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ], it is said: “In an action for declaratory relief, the proper function of the court is to make a full and complete declaration, disposing of all questions of rights, status or other legal relations encountered in construing the instrument before it.” Osborne v. Security Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 94 ], states: “It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy,” and points out the prejudicial nature of a failure to find upon a mater | 3 | 3 |
American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winklegreen2 sentences1963In Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511 , at page 525 [ 332 P.2d 324 ], the court said: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. ’ ” (See also American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]; Veale v. Piercy, 206 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 91 ].) Turning now to the pleadings, plaintiff prayed for a declaratory judgment determining not only her rights in and to the real property under the property settlement agreement, but also defendant-executor’s duties. 1963In Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511 , at page 525 [ 332 P.2d 324 ], the court said: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. ’ ” (See also American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]; Veale v. Piercy, 206 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 91 ].) Turning now to the pleadings, plaintiff prayed for a declaratory judgment determining not only her rights in and to the real property under the property settlement agreement, but also defendant-executor’s duties. | 2 | 4 |
De Burgh v. De Burghgreen2 sentences1962In American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ], it is said: “In an action for declaratory relief, the proper function of the court is to make a full and complete declaration, disposing of all questions of rights, status or other legal relations encountered in construing the instrument before it.” Osborne v. Security Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 94 ], states: “It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy,” and points out the prejudicial nature of a failure to find upon a mater 1962In American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ], it is said: “In an action for declaratory relief, the proper function of the court is to make a full and complete declaration, disposing of all questions of rights, status or other legal relations encountered in construing the instrument before it.” Osborne v. Security Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 94 ], states: “It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy,” and points out the prejudicial nature of a failure to find upon a mater | 2 | 2 |
Parker v. Shell Oil Co.green2 sentences1962In American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ], it is said: “In an action for declaratory relief, the proper function of the court is to make a full and complete declaration, disposing of all questions of rights, status or other legal relations encountered in construing the instrument before it.” Osborne v. Security Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 94 ], states: “It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy,” and points out the prejudicial nature of a failure to find upon a mater 1957(American, Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 *205 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ].) As to the prejudicial nature of failure to find upon a material issue in any case, see Parker v. Shell Oil Co., 29 Cal.2d 503, 512 [ 175 P.2d 838 ] ; DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 873 [ 250 P.2d 598 ]. | 2 | 2 |
Abbott v. City of San Diegogreen2 sentences1963In Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511 , at page 525 [ 332 P.2d 324 ], the court said: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. ’ ” (See also American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]; Veale v. Piercy, 206 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 91 ].) Turning now to the pleadings, plaintiff prayed for a declaratory judgment determining not only her rights in and to the real property under the property settlement agreement, but also defendant-executor’s duties. 1963In Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511 , at page 525 [ 332 P.2d 324 ], the court said: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. ’ ” (See also American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]; Veale v. Piercy, 206 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 91 ].) Turning now to the pleadings, plaintiff prayed for a declaratory judgment determining not only her rights in and to the real property under the property settlement agreement, but also defendant-executor’s duties. | 1 | 2 |
Amerson v. Christmangreen2 sentences2014“In actions for declaratory relief, the court should attempt to do complete equity, resolving all questions actually involved in the case as between all of the respective parties. [Citation.]” (Amerson v. Christman (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 811, 823 .) “It is the duty of the court hearing the action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination and disposition of the controversy.” (Ibid.) The majority has narrowly construed Consumer Watchdog’s petition, holding that the failure to specifically seek “retroactive” relief bars our consideration of whether DMHC properly resolved any grievanc 2014“In actions for declaratory relief, the court should attempt to do complete equity, resolving all questions actually involved in the case as between all of the respective parties. [Citation.]” (Amerson v. Christman (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 811, 823 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 378 ].) “It is the duty of the court hearing the action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination and disposition of the controversy.” (Ibid.) The majority has narrowly construed Consumer Watchdog’s petition, holding that the failure to specifically seek “retroactive” relief bars our consideration of whether DMHC properly r | 1 | 1 |
Crittenden v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1998Health (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 425, 444 [ 322 P.2d 968 ].) The reason is: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. . . .’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) *47 In Crittenden v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 565, 569 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 380 , 393 P.2d 692 ], where it was contended that . . 1998Health (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 425, 444 [ 322 P.2d 968 ].) The reason is: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. . . .’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) *47 In Crittenden v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 565, 569 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 380 , 393 P.2d 692 ], where it was contended that . . | 1 | 1 |
County of Los Angeles v. State Department of Public Healthgreen2 sentences1998Health (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 425, 444 [ 322 P.2d 968 ].) The reason is: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. . . .’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) *47 In Crittenden v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 565, 569 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 380 , 393 P.2d 692 ], where it was contended that . . 1998Health (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 425, 444 [ 322 P.2d 968 ].) The reason is: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. . . .’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) *47 In Crittenden v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 565, 569 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 380 , 393 P.2d 692 ], where it was contended that . . | 1 | 1 |
Merigan v. Bauergreen2 sentences1968(Merigan v. Bauer, 206 Cal.App.2d 616, 621 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 872 ]; Caffroy v. Fremlin. 198 Cal.App.2d 176, 184 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) In view of these authorities the trial court had full and complete power to decide the ease in all its aspects. 1968(Merigan v. Bauer, 206 Cal.App.2d 616, 621 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 872 ]; Caffroy v. Fremlin. 198 Cal.App.2d 176, 184 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) In view of these authorities the trial court had full and complete power to decide the ease in all its aspects. | 1 | 1 |
Caffroy v. Fremlingreen2 sentences1968(Merigan v. Bauer, 206 Cal.App.2d 616, 621 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 872 ]; Caffroy v. Fremlin. 198 Cal.App.2d 176, 184 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) In view of these authorities the trial court had full and complete power to decide the ease in all its aspects. 1968(Merigan v. Bauer, 206 Cal.App.2d 616, 621 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 872 ]; Caffroy v. Fremlin. 198 Cal.App.2d 176, 184 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) In view of these authorities the trial court had full and complete power to decide the ease in all its aspects. | 1 | 1 |
Petersen v. Ridenourgreen2 sentences1958Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 84 ].) Accord: Petersen v. Ridenour, 135 Cal.App.2d 720, 727-728 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]. 1958Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 84 ].) Accord: Petersen v. Ridenour, 135 Cal.App.2d 720, 727-728 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Veale v. Piercy
green
2 sentences1963In Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511 , at page 525 [ 332 P.2d 324 ], the court said: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. ’ ” (See also American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]; Veale v. Piercy, 206 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 91 ].) Turning now to the pleadings, plaintiff prayed for a declaratory judgment determining not only her rights in and to the real property under the property settlement agreement, but also defendant-executor’s duties. 1963In Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511 , at page 525 [ 332 P.2d 324 ], the court said: “ ‘It is the duty of the court hearing an action for declaratory relief to make a complete determination of the controversy. ’ ” (See also American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]; Veale v. Piercy, 206 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 91 ].) Turning now to the pleadings, plaintiff prayed for a declaratory judgment determining not only her rights in and to the real property under the property settlement agreement, but also defendant-executor’s duties. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Pauline v. Fitzpatrick
green
1 sentence1958Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 204 [ 318 P.2d 84 ].) Accord: Petersen v. Ridenour, 135 Cal.App.2d 720, 727-728 [ 287 P.2d 848 ]; American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle, 39 Cal.2d 210, 219 [ 246 P.2d 935 ]. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.