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 2008–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Torjesen v. Mansdorfgreen2 sentences2021(See Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 156, 166 [“Given that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the parentage of the unborn child, and that [the plaintiff] invoked that jurisdiction, stipulated to the issuance of a judgment, and enjoyed the benefits of that judgment for nearly two years, it would be unfair both to [the defendant] and the child to permit [the plaintiff] to challenge the validity of that judgment.”]; Torjesen, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 116 [a court order in excess of jurisdiction “was not subject to collateral attack two years after it was entered”]; 2021(See Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 156, 166 [“Given that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the parentage of the unborn child, and that [the plaintiff] invoked that jurisdiction, stipulated to the issuance of a judgment, and enjoyed the benefits of that judgment for nearly two years, it would be unfair both to [the defendant] and the child to permit [the plaintiff] to challenge the validity of that judgment.”]; Torjesen, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 116 [a court order in excess of jurisdiction “was not subject to collateral attack two years after it was entered”]; | 2 | 2 |
Garibotti v. Hinklegreen2 sentences2021Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 830, 842 ; see Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 481 [“‘The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction . . . “provides that when a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, ‘a party who seeks or consents to action beyond the court’s power as defined by statute or decisional rule may be estopped to complain of the ensuing action in excess of jurisdiction.’”’”].) Michael and Joseph agreed to include the five UCNP entities in the buyout proceeding and did not question the validity of the court’s altern 2021Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 830, 842 ; see Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 481 [“‘The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction . . . “provides that when a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, ‘a party who seeks or consents to action beyond the court’s power as defined by statute or decisional rule may be estopped to complain of the ensuing action in excess of jurisdiction.’”’”].) Michael and Joseph agreed to include the five UCNP entities in the buyout proceeding and did not question the validity of the court’s altern | 2 | 2 |
Kristine H. v. Lisa R.green2 sentences2021(See Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 156, 166 [“Given that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the parentage of the unborn child, and that [the plaintiff] invoked that jurisdiction, stipulated to the issuance of a judgment, and enjoyed the benefits of that judgment for nearly two years, it would be unfair both to [the defendant] and the child to permit [the plaintiff] to challenge the validity of that judgment.”]; Torjesen, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 116 [a court order in excess of jurisdiction “was not subject to collateral attack two years after it was entered”]; 2021(See Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 156, 166 [“Given that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the parentage of the unborn child, and that [the plaintiff] invoked that jurisdiction, stipulated to the issuance of a judgment, and enjoyed the benefits of that judgment for nearly two years, it would be unfair both to [the defendant] and the child to permit [the plaintiff] to challenge the validity of that judgment.”]; Torjesen, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 116 [a court order in excess of jurisdiction “was not subject to collateral attack two years after it was entered”]; | 2 | 2 |
Mt. Holyoke Homes v. California Costal Commissiongreen2 sentences2021Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 830, 842 ; see Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 481 [“‘The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction . . . “provides that when a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, ‘a party who seeks or consents to action beyond the court’s power as defined by statute or decisional rule may be estopped to complain of the ensuing action in excess of jurisdiction.’”’”].) Michael and Joseph agreed to include the five UCNP entities in the buyout proceeding and did not question the validity of the court’s altern 2021Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 830, 842 ; see Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 481 [“‘The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction . . . “provides that when a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, ‘a party who seeks or consents to action beyond the court’s power as defined by statute or decisional rule may be estopped to complain of the ensuing action in excess of jurisdiction.’”’”].) Michael and Joseph agreed to include the five UCNP entities in the buyout proceeding and did not question the validity of the court’s altern | 1 | 3 |
In re Griffingreen1 sentence2022(In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343, 348 (Griffin).) In Griffin, for example, we held that the habeas corpus petitioner was estopped from challenging an order revoking probation. | 1 | 1 |
People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2015“Essentially, jurisdictional errors are of two types. ‘Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.’ [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’ ” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 93 P.3d 1020 ] (American Contractors); see People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136 [ 1 2015“Essentially, jurisdictional errors are of two types. ‘Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.’ [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’ ” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 93 P.3d 1020 ] (American Contractors); see People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136 [ 1 | 1 | 1 |
Paniagua v. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITYgreen2 sentences2015“Essentially, jurisdictional errors are of two types. ‘Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.’ [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’ ” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 93 P.3d 1020 ] (American Contractors); see People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136 [ 1 2015“Essentially, jurisdictional errors are of two types. ‘Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.’ [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’ ” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 93 P.3d 1020 ] (American Contractors); see People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136 [ 1 | 1 | 1 |
HAGAN ENGINEERING, INC. v. Millsgreen2 sentences2015(Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1188 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ]; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 ].) (11) Whether the doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction applies therefore turns on the nature of the jurisdictional error involved. 2015(Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1188 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ]; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 ].) (11) Whether the doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction applies therefore turns on the nature of the jurisdictional error involved. | 1 | 1 |
Hahn v. Diaz-Barbagreen2 sentences2015(Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1188 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ]; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 ].) (11) Whether the doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction applies therefore turns on the nature of the jurisdictional error involved. 2015(Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1188 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ]; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 ].) (11) Whether the doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction applies therefore turns on the nature of the jurisdictional error involved. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brewergreen2 sentences2015“Essentially, jurisdictional errors are of two types. ‘Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.’ [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’ ” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 93 P.3d 1020 ] (American Contractors); see People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136 [ 1 2015“Essentially, jurisdictional errors are of two types. ‘Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.’ [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’ ” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76 , 93 P.3d 1020 ] (American Contractors); see People v. Brewer (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 122, 136 [ 1 | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Ghaderigreen2 sentences2008“A valid claim for equitable estoppel requires: (a) a representation or concealment of material facts; (b) made with knowledge, actual or virtual, of the facts; (c) to a party ignorant, actually and permissibly, of the truth; (d) with the intention, actual or virtual, that the ignorant party act on it; and (e) that party was induced to act on it.” (Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 584 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 , 187 P.3d 934 ].) The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction, however, “provides that when a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, ‘a party who seeks or consent 2008“A valid claim for equitable estoppel requires: (a) a representation or concealment of material facts; (b) made with knowledge, actual or virtual, of the facts; (c) to a party ignorant, actually and permissibly, of the truth; (d) with the intention, actual or virtual, that the ignorant party act on it; and (e) that party was induced to act on it.” (Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 584 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 , 187 P.3d 934 ].) The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction, however, “provides that when a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action, ‘a party who seeks or consent | 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. Ford
green
2 sentences2015(Ibid.) The court reasoned: “Like a request for a continuance of a revocation hearing, an application for a stay of execution of a jail term pending appeal contemplates that the proceedings related to that term will resume at a later time.” (Ibid.) In People v. Ford (2015) 61 Cal.4th 282 [ 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 919 , 349 P.3d 98 ] (Ford), the Supreme Court revisited the doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction. 2015(Ibid.) The court reasoned: “Like a request for a continuance of a revocation hearing, an application for a stay of execution of a jail term pending appeal contemplates that the proceedings related to that term will resume at a later time.” (Ibid.) In People v. Ford (2015) 61 Cal.4th 282 [ 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 919 , 349 P.3d 98 ] (Ford), the Supreme Court revisited the doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Bakke
green
1 sentence2015(Bakke, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 89 .) Whether the party should be estopped depends on a weighing of equities in the particular case, the effect of estoppel on the functioning of the courts, and considerations of public policy. | 1 | 2015–2015 |